I  ■    ■Ifcfc^fcfcjNt^^h  fl"*.^ 


JAN  2 G 19/2 


A 


n  o . 


ry   ' 


fcANFORD  H.  SMITH. 


THE 


GOSPEL 


ACCORDING    TO 


M  AE  K 


EXPLAINED   BY 


/ 


JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDER 


NEW  YORK 
CHAPvLES  SCPvIBNER  124  GRAND  STREET 

1858 


Enteeed  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1858,  by 

JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDEK, 

Iti  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  District  of  New  Jersey. 


JOHN  F.  TROW, 
Printkk,  Stereotypkr,  and  Elkctuotypkk, 
No8.  377  &  379  Broadway,  New  York. 


P  R  E  P  A  C  E  . 


-♦♦♦- 


It  has  so  long  been  the  habit,  both  of  readers  and 
interpreters,  to  treat  the  Second  Gospel  as  a  mere  abridg- 
ment, snj^plement,  or  compilation,  without  any  indepen- 
dent character  or  value  of  its  own,  that  some  may  be 
surprised  to  find  it  here  expounded  independently  of  Luke 
and  Matthew,  as  a  history  complete  in  itself,  designed  to 
answer  a  specific  purpose  and  to  make  a  definite  impres- 
sion. This  is  not  the  result  of  caprice  or  accident,  but  of 
a  strong  conviction,  dating  from  an  early  stage  of  exeget- 
ical  study,  that  Augustin's  notion  as  to  Mark's  dependence 
upon  Matthew,  although  acquiesced  in  for  a  course  of 
ages,  is  a  hurtful  error,  and  that  this  description  applies 
still  more  strongly  to  some  later  speculations  of  the  Ger- 
man critics.  This  conviction  has  been  strengthened  and 
confirmed  by  the  whole  course  of  late  investigation  and 
discussion  on  the  subject  of  the  Gospels,  notwithstanding 
the  tendency  of  some  writers  to  the  opposite  extreme 
of  making  Mark  the  oldest  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  basis 
upon  which  the  rest  were  afterwards  constructed.  With- 
out attempting  to  determine  its  precise  chronological  rela- 
tions, there  is  something  in  its  structure,  as  describ'tid 
below,  which  makes  it  eminently  fit  to  give  the  first  imj)res- 
sion  of  the  Gospel  History,  and  prepare  the  reader  for  the 
study  of  the  other  books.     This,  which  has  long  been  the 


IV  PREFACE. 

writer's  practice  in  academical  instruction,  he  is  happy  to 
see  sanctioned  in  one  of  the  latest  and  best  English  works 
iij^on  the  Gospels,  of  which  he  was  not  able  to  avail  him- 
self nntil  his  own  was  completed.  "  The  notes  on  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Mark  will  be  found  to  be  more  full  than 
is  the  case  in  works  with  a  similar  design.  These  anno- 
tations were  written  first,  with  the  object  of  calling  atten- 
tion to  an  independent  record  which  has  been  treated  in 
some  quarters  with  unmerited  neglect,  and  with  the  view 
of  relieving  the  first  Gospel  as  much  as  possible  from  a 
redundancy  of  notes.  We  would  suggest  to  those  who 
may  put  this  work  into  the  hands  of  their  pupils  at  scliool, 
that  tliere  are  reasons  why  the  Second  Gospel  should  be 
read  before  any  other,  as  the  best  introduction  to  the  reg- 
ular and  systematic  study  of  the  New  Testament."  (Web- 
ster and  Wilkinson's  Greek  Testament,  with  notes  Gram- 
matical and  Exegetical.     Yol.  I.  p.  9.     London  :  1855.) 

Closely  connected  with  these  views  is  another  feature 
of  the  plan  adopted  in  the  present  volume,  that  of  making 
it  com]3lete  in  itself,  and  leaving  nothing  to  be  eked  out 
or  supplied  by  reference,  even  to  the  writer's  other  publi- 
cations. This  will  account  for  the  occasional  rej)etition 
of  what  he  has  said  elsewhere,  as  a  lesser  evil  than  tlie 
irksome  necessity  of  seeking  it  in  places  which,  to  many 
readers  of  the  present  work,  may  be  imknown  or  inac- 
cessible. Tlie  absence  of  all  reference  to  other  and  espe- 
cially contemporary  writers,  some  of  whom  he  highly 
values  and  has  diligently  studied,  is  partly  owing  to  the 
want  of  room,  but  also  to  the  fact  that  his  design  is  not  to 
supersede  or  rival  other  works  upon  the  subject,  but  to 
supplement  them  by  preserving  the  specific  fruits  of  his 
own  labours  in  the  same  great  field. 

Princeton,  Sei^teraber  1,  1858.  ' 


INTRODUCTION. 


-♦♦♦- 


The  Biblical  History  consists  of  two  great  parts,  contained 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  respectively.  The  New  Testa- 
ment portion  naturally  falls  into  two  divisions ;  the  Gospel  His- 
tory or  life  of  Christ,  from  his  birth  to  his  ascension ;  and  the 
Apostolical  History,  from  his  ascension  to  the  close  of  the 
canon. 

The  Grospel  History,  when  measured  simply  by  its  chrono- 
logical dimensions,  or  the  space  of  time  included  in  the  narrative, 
is  but  a  small  part  of  the  sacred  history,  yet  fully  entitled  to  the 
place  assigned  it,  both  by  its  absolute  and  relative  importance. 

The  absolute  value  of  the  Gospel  History  is  that  arising  from 
the  dignity  of  its  subject,  as  the  Life  of  Christ,  in  which,  to  our 
conceptions,  there  is  nothing  little  or  uninteresting,  since  all 
his  words  and  actions  are  intrinsically  great  and  worthy  of 
attention. 

The  relative  value  of  the  Gospel  History  is  that  which  springs 
from  its  connection  with  the  rest,  and  especially  its  striking  in- 
termediate position,  as  the  winding  up  of  all  that  goes  before, 
and  the  foundation  of  all  that  follows,  so  that  neither  the  Old 
Testament  history  nor  that  of  the  Apostolical  Church  would, 
without  it,  be  of  any  use  or  intelligible  import. 

But  the  Gospel  History  is  not  more  distinctly  marked  by  its 
subject  and  its  relative  position  than  it  is  by  its  peculiar  form, 
in  which  it  is  unlike  all  other  parts  of  Scripture.     For  although 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

we  elsewhere  meet  with  two  and  sometimes  even  three  parallel 
accounts  of  the  same  events,  this  is  the  only  case  of  four  such 
narratives,  and  these  not  merely  parts  or  passages  of  hooks,  but 
complete  and  independent  histories. 

But  besides  the  mere  plurality  or  quadruplicity  of  the  ac- 
counts, these  four  books,  when  compared,  present  a  singular  phe- 
nomenon of  striking  difference  and  no  less  striking  likeness.  For 
although  the  subject  is  identical,  and  all  exhibit  the  same  Christ, 
far  more  harmoniously  than  Socrates  is  painted  by  his  two  dis- 
ciples, Xenophon  and  Plato,  there  is  a  surprising  freedom  and 
diversity,  not  only  in  the  choice  of  topics,  but  in  their  arrange- 
ment and  expression,  and  an  independence  in  the  statement  of 
details  amounting  sometimes  to  apparent  contradiction ;  while  in 
other  cases,  or  perhaps  in  the  same  context,  there  are  coincidences 
of  form,  even  in  minute  points,  too  exact  and  yet  too  arbitrary 
to  be  accidental. 

It  is  this  combined  diversity  and  likeness  which  creates  both 
the  necessity  and  difficulty  of  constructing  Gospel  Harmonies, 
i.  e.  synoptical  arrangements  of  the  four  inspired  accounts  in- 
tended mainly  to  demonstrate  their  consistency,  but  partly  also 
to  determine  the  precise  chronological  succession  of  events,  in 
which  attempt  the  harmonists  have  failed  as  signally  as  they  have 
been  successful  in  the  more  important  object. 

The  true  use  of  Harmonies,  as  aids  in  the  elucidation  and 
defence  of  the  four  Gospels,  as  consistent  and  authentic  narratives, 
has  sometimes  led  to  their  abuse,  as  something  to  be  substituted 
for  the  books  themselves  in  their  original  and  independent  form, 
and  even  to  their  absolute  amalgamation  into  one  new  narrative, 
distinct  from  all  the  others,  but  intended  to  include  and  super- 
sede them. 

This  attempt  proceeds  upon  two  groundless  suppositions ;  first, 
that  exact  chronological  arrangement  is  essential  to  the  truth  of 
history ;  and  second,  that  the  Gospels,  as  we  have  them,  are 
merely  crude  collections  of  materials,  out  of  which  the  history 
must  be  constructed  by  the  exercise  of  human  skill  and  industry ; 
whereas  they  are   themselves  complete   authoritative  histories, 


INTRODUCTION.  YU 

which  may  be  usefully  compared  and  harmonized,  but  which  were 
designed  to  be  separately  read  until  the  end  of  time. 

If  this  be  so,  the  quadruplicity  or  fourfold  form  of  the  Gospel 
History  becomes  a  lawful  and  interesting  subject  of  inquiry,  as 
to  its  specific  purpose,  over  and  above  the  ultimate  solution,  of 
which  all  such  questions  are  susceptible,  by  simple  reference  to 
the  will  of  God.  The  question  is  not  whether  God  so  willed  it, 
which  is  absolutely  certain,  but  whether  he  willed  it  for  a  definite 
reason,  either  partially  or  wholly  ascertainable  by  us,  and  if  so 
not  without  efiect  upon  our  methods  of  interpretation. 

The  fact  itself  to  be  explained,  to  wit,  the  immemorial  exist- 
ence of  the  Gospel  History  in  the  form  of  four  complete  books, 
is  attested  by  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  Church,  which  has 
never  recognized  as  parts  of  the  inspired  canon,  either  more  or 
less  than  these  four  Gospels  ;  nor  ever  attached  any  other  names 
to  them  than  those  which  they  now  bear  ;  a  testimony  only  ren- 
dered more  impressive  by  the  absence  of  such  perfect  unanimity 
in  reference  to  the  order  of  their  composition,  and  their  original 
relation  to  each  other,  which  have  therefore  given  rise  to  various 
hypotheses  of  more  or  less  intrinsic  probability,  intended  to  ac- 
count for  the  existence  and  the  several  peculiarities  of  our  Four 
Gospels. 

In  opposition  to  the  view,  avowedly  or  tacitly  maintained 
by  some  believing  writers,  and  perhaps  by  most  believing 
readers,  that  the  fourfold  form  of  the  Gospel  record  is  a  matter 
of  course,  or  something  altogether  arbitrary,  neither  requiring 
nor  admitting  explanation,  some  sceptical  critics  have  attempted 
to  account  for  it  as  accidental,  by  assuming  the  existence  of  one 
or  many  original  gospels,  out  of  which,  by  various  combinations, 
versions,  and  abridgments,  the  canonical  Four  Gosj^els  were 
evolved  and  took  their  present  shape ;  a  theory  refuted  by  its 
complicated  and  gratuitous  assumptions,  and  its  total  failure 
either  to  demonstrate  the  existence  or  to  explain  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  documents,  to  which  it  traces  the  extant  gospels. 

A  less  extravagant  and  no  doubt  partially  correct  hypothesis 
is  that  of  an  oral  gospel,   constantly  repeated,  yet  inevitably 


vm  INTRODUCTION. 

varied,  so  as  to  account  for  Tbotli  the  likeness  and  tlie  difference 
observable  between  the  Gospels  even  in  minute  points  of  arrange- 
ment and  expression.  The  fatal  defect,  both  of  this  and  of  the 
previous  suppositions,  is  that  they  ascribe  the  present  form  of 
this  part  of  the  sacred  history  to  gradual  and  accidental  causes ; 
whereas  all  believers  in  its  inspiration  must  regard  that  form  as 
an  essential  feature  of  the  Gospel  as  divinely  planned  from  the 
beo-innino'. 

But  even  holding  fast  to  this  assumption  as  the  only  safe  one, 
we  may  still  inquire,  what  was  the  specific  purpose  meant  to  be 
accomplished  by  recording  the  Life  of  Christ  in  four  books 
rather  than  in  one  ?  The  simplest  and  the  most  familiar  answer 
to  this  question  is,  that  the  later  Gospels  were  intended  to  com- 
plete and  supplement  the  others  by  supplying  their  omissions. 
But  this  only  throws  the  difficulty  further  back,  and  leaves  it 
wholly  unexplained  why  there  were  omissions  to  be  thus  supplied, 
or  in  other  words,  why  the  whole  was  not  revealed  at  once  and 
embodied  in  a  single  narrative,  such  as  some  harmonists  have 
since  endeavoured  to  construct. 

An  ingenious  effort  has  been  made  to  solve  this  difficulty  by 
exhibiting  a  gradual  formation  of  the  Gospels  to  meet  actual 
emergencies  and  governed  by  contemporary  causes ;  the  first 
Gospel  being  written  to  supply  the  original  demand  near  the  close 
of  the  first  generation,  and  before  the  oral  tradition  was  entirely 
lost,  and  Matthew  being  chosen  to  compose  it  as  the  only  apostle 
whose  previous  occupation  had  accustomed  him  to  writing ;  the 
second  being  written  to  adapt  the  history  to  Gentile  readers,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  preserve  the  vivid  reminiscences  of  Peter  ; 
the  third  to  give  it  more  historical  completeness,  as  a  methodical 
and  formal  composition ;  and  the  fourth,  to  counteract  corrup- 
tions which  had  sprung  up  in  the  interval  between  its  date  and 
that  of  the  three  others. 

But  whatever  truth  there  may  be  in  these  suppositions,  they 
are  not  entirely  satisfactory  so  long  as  they  ascribe  the  present 
fourfold  form  of  the  Gospel  History,  if  not  to  accidental  yet  to 
providential  causes,  which  are  themselves  left  unexplained.     The 


INTRODUCTION.  IX 

only  possible  solution  of  the  problem  seems  to  be  by  adding  to 
these  plausible  hypotheses  the  obvious  assumption,  that  the  four 
Gospels  were  intended  to  present  the  life  and  character  of  Christ 
in  four  harmonious  but  distinguishable  aspects,  each  adapted  to 
produce  its  own  impression  inde^Dcndent  of  the  others,  yet  all 
reciprocally  necessary  to  secure  the  aggregate  effect  intended  to 
be  wrought  by  this  part  of  the  sacred  history. 

The  Gospels,  thus  viewed,  have  been  likened  to  four  por- 
traits or  four  landscapes,  all  presenting  the  same  objects,  but 
in  different  lights  and  from  different  points  of  view,  and  illus- 
trative of  one  another,  yet  wholly  insusceptible  of  mere  mechan- 
ical amalgamation  without  utterly  destroying  their  distinctive 
character  and  even  their  intrinsic  value.  So  the  Gospels,  although 
really  harmonious  and  equally  inspired,  are  designed  to  answer 
each  its  own  specific  purpose  and  produce  its  definite  impression 
on  the  reader,  a  design  which  would  be  nullified  by  blending 
them  together  in  one  narrative-,  however  chronological  or  skilfully 
constructed.  This  view  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  writers,  which  did  not  destroy  their  individ- 
uality, as  may  be  seen  from  their  peculiar  use  of  words  and 
phrases,  often  wholly  unimportant,  but  for  that  very  reason  the 
more  certainly  unstudied  and  the  evident  result  of  personal  habit, 
turn  of  mind,  or  special  purpose,  all  controlled  but  not  con- 
founded or  destroyed  by  inspiration,  any  more  than  the  authority 
of  Moses  is  impaired  because  he  did  not  write  in  Grreek,  or  that 
of  Paul  because  he  did  not  write  in  Hebrew.  What  is  true  of 
different  languages  must  needs  be  true  of  different  dialects  and 
idioms,  and  even  individual  peculiarities  in  the  use  of  one  and 
the  same  language. 

The  individuality  and  independence  thus  evinced  by  minute 
peculiarities  of  language,  may  be  also  proved  by  diversities  of 
plan  and  method,  and  apparent  reference,  in  the  first  instance,  to 
different  classes  of  readers,  more  especially  to  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
as  well  as  by  habitual  attention  to  particular  topics  or  to  circum- 
stances of  a  certain  kind,  which  one  systematically  introduces 
and  the  rest  omit.     Such  are  Luke's  repeated  mention  of  our 


XU  INTRODUCTION. 

rest,  it  contains  scarcely  any  tliiug  entirely  peculiar  to  itself,  its 
incidents  and  topics,  with  a  few  very  limited  exceptions,  being 
common  to  it  with  the  others,  and  especially  with  Luke  and 
Matthew.  Its  rcmarkahle  resemblance  to  the  latter,  both  in 
form  and  substance,  early  led  to  the  mistake,  still  unfortunately 
current,  of  regarding  Mark  as  an  abridgment  or  epitome  of  Mat- 
thew. This  error,  although  sanctioned  by  the  great  name  of 
Augustin,  is  completely  refuted  by  the  fact,  that  Mark  not  only 
re -arranges  much  of  the  material  which  he  has  in  common  with 
Matthew,  but  in  many  instances  adds  graphic  and  minute  details 
not  found  in  Matthew;  so  that  while  his  incidents  are  fewer, 
they  are  often  far  more  fully  and  minutely  stated,  which  is  wholly 
at  variance  with  the  very  idea  of  abridgment,  except  upon  the 
arbitrary  and  unnatural  assumption,  that  the  writer,  blending 
two  almost  inconsistent  processes  in  one  act,  at  the  same  time 
contracted  and  embellished  his  original. 

Another  error,  of  more  recent  date  but  equally  untenable,  is 
that  of  representing  Mark  as  a  compiler,  who  sometimes  follows 
Luke  and  sometimes  Matthew.  This  assumes  of  course  that  the 
traditional  arrangement  of  the  Gospels,  which  assigns  to  Mark 
the  second  place,  and  which  was  recognized  by  Origen  as  chro- 
nological, has  really  no  such  foundation.  Indeed  modern  critical 
conjecture  has  in  turn  adopted  every  possible  combination  of  the 
four  names,  and  transported  Mark  not  only  to  the  last  but  to  the 
first  place  in  the  catalogue,  as  the  original  and  fundamental  Gos- 
pel, out  of  which  the  others  have  been  gradually  amplified.  The 
specious  arguments,  by  which  this  last  opinion  is  supported,  al- 
though far  from  proving  it  to  be  correct,  do  serve  to  show  the 
superficial  shallow  nature  of  the  opposite  extreme,  which  repre- 
sents this  Gospel  as  a  mere  epitome  or  compilation.  The  ease 
and  plausibility,  with  which  these  opposite  hypotheses  may  not 
only  be  propounded  a  j)Tiori,  but  carried  out  in  detail  when  once 
assumed,  only  shows  that  they  arc  founded  upon  no  sufficient 
data,  and  ought  not  to  be  adopted  as  the  basis  of  interpretation. 
It  is  just  as  easy,  by  the  use  of  such  means,  to  establish  Mark's 
priority  as  Matthew's  ;  and  it  is  better  thereforo  to  cxpoimd  them 


INTRODUCTION.  XUI 

as  co-ordinate  and  independent,  or  to  acquiesce  in  old  and  not 
incredible  "traditions  with  respect  to  them. 

Among  the  oldest  and  most  uniform  of  these  traditions,  so 
far  as  the  main  fact  is  concerned,  although  extremely  variant  in 
the  details,  is  that  which  represents  the  second  Gospel  as  em- 
bodying the  vivid  reminiscences  of  Peter,  and  composed  in  some 
sense  under  his  direction.  An  ingenious  living  writer*  has  im- 
proved upon  this  ancient  statement,  by  supposing  that  the  second 
Gospel  was  composed  by  Peter  in  his  native  language,  and  trans- 
lated into  Greek  under  the  same  divine  direction  and  authority. 
The  proofs  of  this  position  drawn  from  Peter's  eminent  position 
and  the  strong  antecedent  probability  that  he  would  have  a  part 
in  the  recording  of  his  Master's  history,  and  also  from  supposed 
traces  of  his  knowledge  and  experience  as  a  seaman,  although  in- 
conclusive, are  confirmatory  of  the  old  tradition  that  this  Gospel 
is  in  some  sense  his,  and  does  owe  some  of  its  most  interesting 
contents  to  his  recollections. 

The  name  attached  by  uniform  tradition  to  this  Gospel  as  its 
author  is  the  Eoman  one  of  Marh  or  Marcus.  Upon  this,  with 
certain  supposed  military  attributes  of  style  and  manner,  another 
living  writer  of  great  eminence  f  has  founded  the  remarkable 
opinion,  that  this  Marcus  was  the  Roman  soldier  sent  to  Peter 
by  Cornelius  (Acts  10,  7),  and  therefore  mentioned  by  the  former 
as  his  spiritual  son  (1  Pet.  5,  ^3.)  The  arguments  in  favour  of 
this  singular  conclusion,  though  ingenious,  are  by  no  means  likely 
to  subvert  the  old  traditional  belief,  that  the  Mark  who  wrote 
this  Gospel  was  the  John  Mark,  often  named  in  Scripture  as  the 
son  of  a  Christian  woman  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  12,  12),  and  a  near 
relative  of  Barnabas  (Col.  4,  10),  who  attended  him  and  Paul 
from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch  (Acts  12,  25),  and  ministered  to  them 
in  their  mission  to  Cyprus  (Acts  13,  5),  but  forsook  them  at 
Perga  in  Pamphylia  (Acts  13,  13),  and  was  afterwards  a  subject 

•'^  Sin i til  of  Joi-danliill,  iu  a  dissertation  added  to  his  "Voyage  and  Sliip- 
wreck  of  St.  Paul,"  (2d  edition,  London,  1856.) 

t  Da  Costa  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Gospels,  called  in  the  English  version 
"The  Four  VVilnesse«."     (Ntw  York,  1850.) 


XIV  INTRODUCTION. 

of  dispute  between  tliem  and  returned  with  Barnabas  alone  to 
Cyprus  (Acts  15,  37-39),  but  appears  in  Paul's  epistles  as  a 
valued  fellow-labourer  with  Luke  and  others  (Col.  4,  10.  Philem. 
24.  2  Tim.  4, 11),  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with  his  ^filial 
relation  to  Peter  (1  Pet.  5,  23)  as  an  older  acquaintance  and  a 
spiritual  father. 

This  Gospel  has  always  formed  a  part  of  the  New  Testament 
Canon,  being  found  in  all  the  ancient  catalogues  as  one  of  the 
liomologianena  or  undisputed  books,  and  quoted  (or  referred  to) 
by  the  earliest  Christian  writers.  The  text  has  been  preserved 
in  many  manuscripts,  of  which  above  five  hundred  have  been 
critically  collated.  Of  these  about  thirty  are  of  the  uncial  class, 
written  in  capitals,  and  for  the  most  part  without  stops,  accents, 
breathings,  or  division  of  the  words,  all  which  are  reckoned  signs 
of  later  date.  Among  these  are  the  four  oldest  copies  of  the 
Greek  Testament  known  to  be  extant,  and  distinguished  in  the 
latest  critical  editions  by  the  four  first  letters  of  the  alphabet. 
A.  The  Codex  Alexandrinus,  in  the  British  Museum.  B.  The 
Codex  Vaticauus,  in  the  Papal  Library  at  Rome.  C.  The  Codex 
EjDhraemi,  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Paris.  D.  The  Codex 
Bezaj,  in  the  University  Library  at  Cambridge.  The  precise 
date  of  these  manuscripts  is  still  disputed,  but  is  now  commonly 
a<2;rced  to  range  from  the  fourth  to  the  sixth  centuries  inclusive. 
All  the  important  variations  of  the  oldest  manuscripts,  par- 
ticularly those  adopted  by  the  latest  critics,  will  be  noticed  in 
the  exposition.  The  only  portion  of  the  book,  whose  genuineness 
has  been  called  in  question,  is  the  last  twelve  verses  of  the  six- 
teenth chapter,  where  the  grounds  of  this  opinion  will  be  stated 
and  disposed  of. 

Besides  the  preservation  of  the  Greek  text  in  these  copies, 
the  book  has  also  been  preserved  in  several  ancient  versions,  the 
most  important  of  which  are  the  Syriac  Peshito,  made  in  the 
third  if  not  the  second  century,  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  made  by 
Jerome,  on  the  basis  of  an  old  Italic  version,  near  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century.  Other  early  versions,  from  the  third  to  the 
ninth  century,  are   the  Egyptian  in  two  dialects,  the  Ethiopic, 


INTRODUCTION.  XV 

Gothic,  Armenian,  Georgian,  Arabic^  and  Slavonic.  Occasional 
reference  will  be  made,  in  the  following  exposition,  to  some  mod- 
ern versions,  more  especially  to  Luther's,  and  the  six  old  English 
versions,  those  of  Wiclif  (1380),  Tyndale  (1534),  Cranmer  (1539), 
the  Geneva  Bible  (1557),  the  Rhemish  Version  (1582),  and  King 
James's  Bible  (1611),  the  last  of  which  is  still  in  common  use. 
Two  of  these,  Wiclif's  and  the  Rhemish,  are  translations  of  the 
Vulgate ;  Cranmer's  is  little  more  than  a  reprint  of  Tyndale's, 
with  a  few  unimportant  variations ;  the  same  is  true,  but  in  a 
less  degree,  of  the  Geneva  Bible ;  while  the  common  version, 
though  to  some  extent  influenced  by  all  the  others,  is  founded 
mainly  upon  Tyndale's,  with  occasional  changes  for  the  worse 
and  for  the  better,  but  a  frequent  adherence  to  him  even  when  in 
error. 

Besides  mere  versions  or  translations,  this  book,  in  common 
with  the  other  Gospels,  has  been  a  constant  subject  of  interpre- 
tation from  the  earliest  to  the  present  times.  In  consequence, 
however,  of  the  false  position  commonly  assigned  to  it,  as  having 
no  original  or  independent  value,  it  has  not  received  its  due  pro- 
portion of  distinct  consideration  until  recently,  when  some  of  the 
best  writers  have  begun  to  treat  it  independently  (though  not 
irrespectively)  of  Luke  and  Matthew.  This  change  for  the  better 
is  especially  observable  in  England,  where  it  has  been  carried 
out  by  several  of  the  latest  and  best  writers  on  the  Gospels.  On 
the  same  principle  the  present  exposition  will  be  so  conducted  as 
to  show  the  book  to  be  a  complete  history  in  itself,  harmonious 
with  the  other  Gospels,  and  susceptible  of  illustration  from  them, 
but  designed  to  answer  a  specific  purpose  and  produce  a  definite 
impression.  This  idea  of  harmonious  independence  is  suggested 
by  the  traditional  but  ancient  title,  the  Gospel  according  to  JIarJc, 
which  has  sometimes  been  erroneously  explained  as  meaning  that 
he  was  not  its  author  but  a  mere  penman  or  amanuensis.  This, 
however,  is  no  more  true  of  the  Gospels  than  of  the  Epistles, 
where  the  formula  has  never  been  applied  by  usage  or  tradition. 
The  true  sense  of  the  phrase  in  question  is  that  the  Gospel 
has  a  fourfold  form  [ivayyiXtov  r€Tpdixop(J3ov')  ^  and  that  this  is 


XVI  INTRODUCTION. 

the  particular  aspect  under  which  it  is  presented  by  the  hand  of 
Mark. 

The  present  division  into  sixteen  chapters  was  made  by 
Cardinal  Hugo,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  to  facilitate  the  use  of 
his  Concordance  to  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  was  not  adopted  in  the^ 
copies  of  the  Greek  text  till  the  fifteenth  century.  The  division 
into  verses  first  appears  in  the  margin  of  Stephens's  edition  (1551), 
and  is  said  to  have  been  made  by  him  during  a  journey  between 
Paris  and  Lyons.  The  actual  separation  of  the  verses,  by  print- 
ing them  in  paragraphs,  appears  for  the  first  time  in  one  of  Beza's 
editions  (1565),  and  although  discontinued  in  the  latest  publica- 
tions of  the  Greek  text,  still  prevails  in  most  editions  of  the  Eng- 
lish Bible  and  of  other  modern  versions.  The  history  of  these 
divisions  should  be  clearly  understood,  in  order  to  prevent  their 
being  thought  original,  or  even  ancient,  and  thereby  to  deprive 
them  of  an  undue  influence  upon  the  exposition  of  the  text  itself. 
The  distinction  of  the  chapters  in  this  book  is  sometimes  inju- 
dicious and  unskilful,  and  at  best  these  conventional  divisions  are 
mere  matters  of  mechanical  convenience,  like  the  paragraphs  and 
pages  of  a  modern  book. 

But  while  we  make  use  of  these  mechanical  contrivances  for 
ease  of  reference  and  consultation,  they  must  not  be  sufi"ered  to 
usurp  the  place  of  a  more  rational  division  growing  out  of  the 
relations  of  the  history  itself,  as  a  methodical  and  systematic 
whole,  designed  to  answer  a  specific  puri^ose.  The  most  cursory 
inspection  shows  the  book  to  be,  as  we  have  seen  already,  a  con- 
nected narrative  of  Christ's  public  ministry,  as  introduced  by 
John  the  Baptist  and  concluded  by  his  own  Ascension.  The  ar- 
rangement is  both  topical  and  chronological,  the  actual  order  of 
events  being  probably  retained  wherever  it  was  not  at  variance 
with  the  writer's  purpose  of  displaying,  chiefly  by  examples,  the 
character  and  method  of  our  Saviour's  work,  his  teachings  and 
his  miracles,  his  treatment  of  the  law  with  its  peculiar  insti- 
tutions, his  preparatory  steps  towards  the  reorganization  of  the 
Church,  the  reception  which  he  met  with  both  from  friends  and 
foes,  and  the  providential  causes  by  which  the  catastrophe  or  crisis 


INTRODUCTION.  XVll 

of  his  history  on  earth  was  first  retarded  and  then  brought 
about. 

In  execution  of  this  purpose,  Mark  begins  with  the  prepar- 
atory work  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  preliminaries  of  Christ's 
own  ministry,  his  baptism  and  temptation,  his  appearance  as  a 
teacher  in  Galilee,  and  the  calling  of  his  first  disciples,  with  ex- 
amples of  his  miracles,  avowedly  selected  from  a  greater  number, 
and  the  commencement  of  his  itinerant  ministry  in  Galilee, 
with  its  powerful  effect  upon  the  people,  as  evinced  by  the 
extraordinary  concourse  which  attended  him  (ch.  i.) 

It  entered  into  the  design  of  the  evangelist,  not  only  to  de- 
scribe our  Lord's  success,  but  the  malignant  opposition  of  his 
enemies.  He  now  presents  the  dark  side  of  the  picture,  and 
enables  us  to  trace  the  growth  of  this  malignant  opposition  from 
its  earliest  appearance  in  a  series  of  charges  brought  against  him 
as  a  violator  of  the  law ;  by  claiming  power  to  forgive  sins ;  by 
holding  intercourse  with  publicans  and  sinners,  and  even  calling 
a  publican  to  be  one  of  his  apostles  ;  by  his  free  and  simple  mode 
of  life,  involving  the  neglect  (as  they  supposed)  of  all  ascetic 
duties ;  and  lastly  by  his  frequent  violation  of  the  Sabbath  (ch.  ii.) 

But  in  spite  of  this  increasing  opposition,  his  fame  and  popu- 
larity were  growing  still  more  rapidly ;  and  when  they  had  at- 
tained their  height,  he  takes  his  first  step  towards  the  re-organizing 
of  the  Church  by  formally  embodying  the  twelve  apostles.  As 
the  concourse  still  continues,  he  refuses  to  be  checked  in  his  la- 
bours, either  by  the  well-meant  but  mistaken  interference  of  his 
friends,  or  by  the  growing  rancour  of  his  enemies,  who  now 
accuse  him  of  collusion  with  the  Evil  One ;  but  solemnly  repels 
both  forms  of  opposition,  by  warning  men  against  the  unpardon- 
able sin,  and  by  asserting  his  own  independence  of  all  natural 
I'elations,  when  in  conflict  with  the  claims  of  his  great  spiritual 
family  (ch.  iii.) 

Besides  selecting,  training,  and  embodying  the  men  by  whom 
the  Church  was  to  be  organized  upon  its  new  or  Christian  basis, 
Christ  prepared  the  way  for  that  great  change  by  teaching  men 
the  principles  on  which  his  kingdom  was  to  be  established  and 


XVlll  INTRODUCTION. 

administered.  This  was  one  primary  design  of  our  Lord's  para- 
bles, of  whicli  mode  of  instruction  Mark  gives  both  a  general  de- 
scription and  particular  examples,  setting  forth  the  various  recep- 
tion of  the  Gospel,  its  independence  of  all  human  agency,  and  its 
expansive  nature  and  design,  by  figures  borrowed  from  the  pro- 
cesses of  husbandry  (ch.  iv.) 

It  becomes  more  clear  as  we  proceed,  that  the  evangelist's 
design  was  to  illustrate,  by  alternate  instances,  the  two  great 
functions  of  our  Lord's  prophetic  ministry,  his  teachings  and  his 
miracles,  in  their  most  intimate  reciprocal  connection  as  attesting 
and  enforcing  one  another.  Having  thus  exemplified  his  parabolic 
method  of  instruction,  he  resumes  the  account  of  his  miraculous 
performances,  presenting  a  new  series  of  four  miracles  selected 
from  the  mass,  not  only  on  account  of  their  intrinsic  greatness, 
but  as  representing  difi"erent  kinds  or  classes  of  such  wonders. 
The  first  shows  his  absolute  dominion  over  winds  and  waves,  as 
if  they  were  his  slaves ;  the  second  his  control  of  evil  spirits, 
even  in  great  numbers,  and  his  power  to  regulate  their  presence 
and  possession  both  of  men  and  brutes  ;  the  third  his  knowledge 
of  the  most  secret  and  inveterate  diseases  and  his  power  to  heal 
them  by  mere  contact  with  his  person ;  and  the  fourth  his  higher 
power  over  death  itself,  as  exerted  in  his  first  recorded  miracle  of 
resuscitation  (ch.  iv.  v.) 

Reverting  once  more  to  the  dark  side  of  the  picture,  Mark 
describes  our  Lord's  rejectiou  by  his  oldest  neighbours  and  ac- 
quaintances at  Nazareth,  but  instantly  contrasts  with  it  his  inde- 
fatigable labours,  both  in  person  and  by  proxy,  through  the  agency 
of  the  apostles,  whom  he  now  commissions  and  sends  forth,  with 
powerful  efi"ect  upon  the  people  and  their  wicked  ruler.  The  re- 
turn of  the  apostles  from  their  first  experimental  mission  gives 
occasion  to  a  new  creative  wonder,  that  of  feeding  the  five  thou- 
sand, followed  by  another  proof  of  his  capacity  to  rule  the  ele- 
ments, and  by  a  general  description  of  his  miracles  in  that  same 
region  and  that  period  of  his  ministry  (ch.  vi.) 

By  another  alternation  and  transition,  clearly  showing  that 
the  writer  had  a  definite  though  complex  end  in  view,  he  now 


INTRODUCTION.  XIX 

resumes  the  history  of  the  Pharisaic  opposition  to  our  Saviour, 
and  records  a  fresh  attack  upon  him  on  account  of  his  neglect 
and  tacit  condemnation  of  their  superstitious  baptisms,  or  uncom- 
manded  ceremonial  washings,  with  his  striking  and  authoritative 
answer,  exposing  their  corruption  of  the  law  in  this  respect,  and 
laying  down  important  doctrines  as  to  ritual  and  moral  purity. 
With  this,  by  a  natural  association,  and  perhaps  by  immediate 
chronological  succession,  is  connected  an  account  of  our  Lord's 
one  visit  to  the  Gentile  world,  and  of  a  miracle  performed  upon  a 
Gentile  subject,  under  circumstances  otherwise  remarkable  and 
unlike  those  of  any  other  case  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  The 
same  thing  is  true  of  another  miracle  here  added,  which  moreover 
is  among  the  few  found  only  in  this  Gospel  (ch.  vii.) 

The  care  with  which  the  writer  thus  far  has  avoided  all  un- 
necessary repetition,  or  the  record  of  events  precisely  similar, 
draws  additional  attention  to  a  second  miracle  by  which  a  multi- 
tude was  nourished  with  a  little  food,  and  shows  that  the  evan- 
gelist regarded  these  as  perfectly  distinct  events,  and  not  as  vary- 
ing versions  of  the  same.  The  opposition  of  the  Pharisees  now 
shows  itself  anew  by  demanding  a  peculiar  proof  of  Christ's  Mes- 
siahship,  which  he  refuses,  and  admonishes  his  followers  against 
their  hypocritical  formality.  The  series  of  his  miracles  here 
closes  with  another  case  peculiar  to  this  Gospel,  and  the  only 
one  on  record  of  a  gradual  or  progressive  restoration  (ch.  viii.) 

Having  thus  exemplified,  concisely  yet  as  fully  as  his  plan 
required,  the  progress  both  of  the  Messiah's  work  and  of  the  oppo- 
sition to  it,  Mark  begins  what  may  be  called  the  second  portion 
of  his  history,  by  showing  how  our  Lord  prepared  his  more  imme 
diate  followers  for  the  close  of  his  career,  by  first  eliciting  a  strong 
expression  of  their  own  belief  of  his  pretensions,  then  predicting 
his  own  passion  and  their  sufferings  in  his  behalf,  and  warning 
them  against  the  danger  and  temptation  of   denying  him  (ch. 

VIII.) 

These  solemn  and  distressing  premonitions  are  succeeded  and 
relieved  by  a  momentary  anticipation  of  his  glory,  afi'orded  to  his 
three  most  confidential  followers,  which  gives  occasion  to  an  au- 


XX  INTRODUCTION. 

thoritative  exposition  of  tlie  prophecies  respecting  his  forerunner. 
Then  comes  a  miracle  of  dispossession,  which  all  the  parallel  ac- 
counts place  directly  after  the  Transfiguration,  and  an  unsuccess- 
ful effort  to  perform  it  by  the  nine  who  had  been  left  behind  on 
that  occasion.  This  failure,  at  a  time  when  he  was  so  soon  to 
leave  them,  leads  to  a  fresh  prediction  of  his  death,  and  this  to  a 
humiliating  strife  for  the  pre-eminence,  from  which  he  takes  oc- 
casion to  explain  the  nature  of  his  kingdom  and  the  only  mode 
of  rising  to  distinction  in  it,  with  appropriate  warnings  against 
the  corresponding  sins  and  errors  {ch.  ix.) 

The  discourses  and  incidents  which  follow  might  have  seemed 
incoherent,  or  at  least  without  a  definite  relation  to  any  general 
plan  or  purpose,  but  for  certain  intimations  in  the  narrative  itself, 
that  they  all  chronologically  appertain  to  Christ's  last  journey  to 
Jerusalem.  The  topics  thus  connected  and  determined  are,  an 
answer  to  a  question  of  the  Pharisees  in  reference  to  marriage 
and  divorce  ;  an  interesting  vindication  of  the  rights  of  children  ; 
a  still  more  interesting  exposition  of  the  hinderances  to  men's 
salvation,  and  the  only  means  by  which  they  can  be  overcome ; 
a  fresh  prediction  of  his  passion,  and  a  fresh  display  of  blind  am- 
bition on  the  part  of  his  disciples,  and  a  fresh  declaration  of  the 
nature  of  his  kingdom  and  affecting  exhibition  of  his  own  exam- 
ple, not  only  in  words  but  by  a  miracle  of  healing  wrought  in 
the  last  stage  of  his  journey  to  Jerusalem  (ch.  x.) 

Having  brought  the  Saviour  to  the  scene  of  his  last  suffer- 
ings, the  evangelist  records  with  great  particularity  the  principal 
occurrences  which  took  place  during  the  eventful  week  succeeding 
his  arrival ;  his  public  recognition  by  the  multitude  as  the  Mes- 
siah, and  his  entrance  as  such  into  the  Holy  City ;  his  purgation 
of  the  temple  in  the  same  caj)acity ;  his  judicial  and  symbolical 
denunciation  of  the  fig-tree.  This  varied  assertion  of  his  Mes- 
sianic claims  provokes  a  series  of  corresponding  movements  on 
the  part  of  his  opponents,  beginning  with  a  formal  and  official 
demand  from  the  national  authorities,  as  to  the  nature  of  his 
claims  and  the  foundation  upon  which  they  rested.  To  this  de- 
mand he  makes  no  answer,  save  by  an  appeal  to  the  testimony  of 


INTRODUCTION.  XXI 

his  forerunner,  as  a  messenger  from  God,  commissioned  to  prepare 
his  way  and  to  attest  the  truth  of  his  pretensions  (oh.  xi.) 

The  rulers  being  thus  foiled  in  their  effort  to  suppress  his 
Messianic  measures,  two  of  the  adverse  parties,  the  Herodians 
and  Pharisees,  unite  in  an  insidious  attempt  to  bring  him  into 
hostile  collision  either  with  the  Jews  or  Romans.  This  endeavour 
also  failing,  the  more  frivolous  Sadducees  seek  to  throw  contempt 
upon  his  teaching  by  a  real  or  pretended  case  of  doubt  as  to  the 
resurrection,  but  are  met  by  a  solemn  and  an  unexpected  re- 
assertion  of  that  doctrine.  A  third  question,  rather  curious  than 
insidious  or  frivolous,  was  propounded  by  a  Scribe,  and  had  respect 
to  the  relative  importance  of  the  precepts  in  the  decalogue,  to 
which  our  Lord  replied  by  quoting  the  familiar  summary  recorded 
in  the  Pentateuch  itself.  He  then  turns  the  tables  by  proposing 
an  unanswerable  question  in  relation  to  a  Messianic  prophecy,  the 
true  sense  of  which  had  been  lost  sight  of,  even  by  their  spiritual 
leaders,  and  warns  the  people  against  leaders  so  unworthy  to  be 
trusted,  both  on  account  of  their  false  doctrine  and  their  covetous 
hypocrisy,  with  which  he  puts  in  striking  contrast  the  small  but 
self-denying  contributions  of  an  humble  widow  to  the  divine 
treasury  (ch.  xii.) 

Having  publicly  assumed  his  Messianic  office,  and  begun  to 
exercise  its  powers ;  having  defined  his  position  with  respect  to 
the  existing  theocratical  authorities,  and  by  his  denunciations  cut 
off  all  hope  of  further  tolerance  or  reconciliation ;  our  Lord  now 
bids  farewell  to  the  temple,  with  a  solemn  prophecy  of  its  destruc- 
tion. This  is  addressed  to  his  disciples,  whose  inquiries  with 
respect  to  the  true  premonitions  of  the  great  catastrophe  afford 
occasion  for  a  long  prophetical  discourse,  in  which  he  first  tells 
them  what  are  not  and  then  what  are  the  signs  of  the  approach- 
ing end,  concluding  with  an  earnest  exhortation  to  perpetual  vigi- 
lance and  constant  preparation  for  his  coming  (ch.  xiii.) 

Having  wound  up  the  history  of  Christ's  prophetic  ministry, 
Mark  now  proceeds  to  treat  of  his  sacerdotal  work,  beginning 
with  the  final  resolution  of  the  rulers  to  destroy  him,  coinciding 
with  the  treachery  of  Judas,  as  matured  by  an  occurrence  which 


XXU  INTRODUCTION. 

took  place  at  Bethany  and  is  here  recorded.  Then  follows  the  last 
Jewish  and  first  Christian  passover,  dividing  yet  connecting  the 
two  dispensations ;  the  prediction  of  his  followers'  desertion  and 
especially  of  Peter's  fall ;  the  mysterious  prelude  to  his  final 
passion  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane ;  his  seizure  and  arraign- 
ment as  a  criminal  before  the  Sanhedrim ;  his  refusal  to  defend 
himself,  but  final  declaration,  under  oath,  of  his  Messiahship ; 
his  consequent  conviction  on  the  charge  of  blasphemy;  to  which 
is  added,  as  a  sort  of  episode  or  supplement,  the  literal  fulfilment 
of  his  prophecy  respecting  Peter  (ch.  xiv.) 

Mark  now  proceeds  to  give  the  second  part  of  the  judicial 
process,  namely,  that  which  took  place  at  the  judgment-seat  of 
Pilate ;  Christ's  avowal  of  his  regal  dignity,  but  silence  with 
respect  to  the  Jewish  accusations ;  Pilate's  efforts  to  release  him, 
but  final  submission  to  the  people  and  their  rulers ;  the  proces- 
sion to  the  place  of  execution,  and  the  actual  crucifixion ;  the  co- 
incidences tending  to  identify  him  as  the  subject  of  the  Messianic 
prophecies ;  the  preternatural  darkness ;  the  derision  of  his  ene- 
mies ;  his  death  upon  the  cross ;  the  rending  of  the  vail,  denoting 
free  access  to  God,  thrown  open  by  his  death  to  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  the  recognition  of  his  claims,  by  the  officer  who  had 
charge  of  his  execution,  as  well  as  by  his  female  followers  who 
witnessed  it,  and  seem  to  have  been  providentially  commissioned 
to  supply  the  place  of  the  apostles  during  their  defection,  by 
watching  over  his  remains  between  the  burial  and  resurrection 
(ch.  XV.) 

The  whole  history  is  now  wound  up  by  a  narrative  of  Christ's 
Resurrection  and  Ascension,  with  his  intermediate  appearances  to 
his  disciples.  This  account,  though  really  harmonious  with  those 
of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  is  strikingly  distinguished  from 
them  by  the  choice  of  incidents  and  facts  recorded,  a  distinction 
satisfactorily  explained  by  Mark's  specific  purpose  to  show  how 
the  incredulity  of  the  eleven  was  gradually  overcome ;  first,  by 
the  testimony  of  the  women ;  then,  by  that  of  Mary  Magdalen 
alone  ;  then,  by  that  of  the  two  disciples  who  returned  from  Em- 
maus ;  and,  lastly,  by  the  Saviour's  actual  appearance  to  them- 


INTRODUCTION.  XXIU 

selves.  The  whole  narrative  then  closes  with  the  renewal  and 
enlargement  of  their  great  commission,  his  ascension  into  heaven, 
and  their  execution  of  his  farewell  orders  (ch.  xvi.) 

This  summary  attempt  to  show  beforehand  that  the  book  is 
not  a  desultory  series  of  mere  anecdotes  or  random  recollections, 
but  a  systematic  history,  in  which  the  topics  are  selected  and  ar- 
ranged with  constant  view  to  a  specific  purpose,  can  be  verified 
only  by  a  patient  process  of  detailed  interpretation,  to  which  this 
analysis  may  serve  as  a  provisional  basis  and  an  introduction. 


THE 


GOSPEL     ACCORDING     TO 

MARK. 


•♦• 


CHAPTEE  I. 

After  a  general  proposition  of  his  theme  or  statement  of  his  purpose  (1), 
the  Evangelist  begins  its  execution,  by  describing  the  preparatory  min- 
istry of  John  the  Baptist  (2-8),  and  the  preliminaries  of  our  Lord's  own 
ministry,  to  wit,  his  baptism  and  temptation  (9-13).  Then  comes  the 
history  of  the  ministry  itself,  beginning  with  his  first  public  appearance 
in  Galilee  (14-15).  the  vocation  of  his  first  disciples  (16-20),  two  ex- 
amples of  his  earliest  miraculous  performances  (21-31),  and  a  general 
description  of  their  number  and  design  (32-34).  After  a  season  of  de- 
votional retirement,  he  begins  his  itinerant  ministr}^  in  Galilee  (35-39), 
and  by  his  miracles  attracts  great  multitudes  (40-45). 

1.  The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son 
of  God  ; 

The  simplest  and  most  natural  construction  here  is  {this  is)  tJi& 
Jjcglnning  of  (or  here  hegins)  the  gospel.  &c.  It  is  then  a  title  or  de- 
scription of  the  whole  book,  such  as  we  often  find  in  the  first  sentence 
of  an  ancient  writing.  (Compare  the  liturgical  formula,  "  Here  begin- 
neth  such  a  chapter  ;  here  endeth  such  a  lesson.")  Some  interpreters 
connect  it  with  the  next  verse,  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  (was)  as  it 
is  written  in  the  prophets  ;  others  withv. 4, 'the  beginning  of  the  gos- 
pel was  John  baptizing.'  But  these  constructions  seem  too  artificial, 
and  the  facts  which  they  are  meant  to  indicate,  though  not  expressed 
here,  are  suggested  by  the  context,  namely,  that  the  ministry  of  Christ 
was  introduced  by  John's,  and  that  both  had  been  predicted  in  the 
ancient  Scriptures.  According  to  the  syntax  first  proposed,  the  verse 
describes  the  whole  book,  or  the  book  describes  itself,  as  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  Gosjjel,  according  to  its  derivation  both  in 
Greek  and  English,  means  good  news,  glad  tidings,  though  commonly 
applied  in  the  classics  to  the  reward  paid  for  such  ijitelligence.     In  the 

1 


2  MARK   1,  1.  2. 

dialect  of  Scripture  it  denotes  by  way  of  eminence  the  good  news  of 
salvation,  or  of  Christ's  appearance  as  a  SaA'iour ;  then  the  history  of 
his  saving  work,  whether  as  orally  related  or  as  written  by  divine  au- 
thority ;  and.  lastly,  the  whole  system  of  saving  truth  or  Christian 
doctrine,  of  which  the  Gospel,  properly  so  called,  is  the  historical  foun- 
dation. It  is  licre  used  in  the  second  of  these  senses,  and  denotes  the 
history  of  our  Saviour's  ministry,  his  personal  and  public  work  on 
earth.  The  other  constructions,  above  mentioned,  suppose  gospel  to 
denote  the  ministry  itself  or  the  act  of  preaching,  which  is  contrary  to 
usage.  The  subject  of  the  histor}'"  is  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God. 
This  is  not  a  mere  personal  designation,  but  an  official  title  or  descrip- 
tion, showing  in  what  specific  character  the  subject  is  to  be  presented, 
namely,  as  the  Saviour  of  his  people  (Jesus)  ;  as  the  Messiah  of  the 
prophecies  (Christ),  i.  e.  the  Anointed  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  of 
Israel ;  and,  lastly,  as  the  Son  of  God,  not  in  the  lower  sense  of  crea- 
ture, or  the  higher  sense  of  one  intensely  loved,  but  in  the  highest  sense 
of  a  divine  person,  a  partaker  of  the  Godhead,  and  sustaining  the  rela- 
tion of  eternal  Sonship  to  the  Father,  from  which  both  take  their 
respective  titles.  Some  interpreters  dwell  only  on  this  last  clause,  and 
suppose  Clark's  Gospel  to  be  distinguished  by  it  from  the  others.  But 
this  description  would  be  more  appropriate  to  John's  if  taken  by  itself, 
which  is  forbidden  b}'  its  intimate  connection  with  the  previous  titles 
(Jesus  Christ),  which  are  equally  significant,  denoting  the  Anointed 
Saviour.  We  find,  accordingl}^  that  Mark  presents  our  Lord  as  the 
Messiah  and  the  Saviour  no  less  than  Luke  and  Matthew,  although  not 
precisely  in  the  same  form.  The  description  of  the  subject  here  is  not 
distinctive  or  exclusive,  though  specific  and  definite,  admonishing  the 
reader  that  the  history  which  here  begins  is  not  that  of  a  mere  man  or 
a  private  person,  but  of  one  who  claimed  to  be  the  anointed,  promised, 
and  divine  deliverer  of  his  people  from  their  sins  (^latt.  1,  21.) 

2.  As  it  is  written  in  the  prophets.  Behold,  I  send  my 
messenger  before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy  way 
before  thee  ; 

Some  interpreters,  as  we  have  seen,  connect  this  in  construction 
with  the  first  verse,  and  understand  it  as  denoting  that  the  gospel,  or 
the  ministry  of  Christ,  began  in  strict  accordance  with  the  pi'ophecies. 
But  if  that  verse  be  taken  by  itself  as  a  descriptive  title  of  the  whole 
book,  the  one  before  us  must  be  construed  with  what  follows.  As  it 
icas  written  ....  (so)  John  was  baptizing.  The  writer's  purpose  here  is 
to  connect  the  ministry  of  Christ,  through  that  of  his  forerunner,  with  the 
ancient  Scriptures  and  the  church  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  he  does 
in  a  very  striking  form  by  quoting,  at  the  outset  of  his  narrative,  the 
text  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  thus  connecting  the  two  canons  in  the 
closest  manner,  notwithstanding  the  long  interval  of  four  hundred 
years  between  them.  As  if  he  had  said,  in  commencing  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ,  I  am  only  recommencing  the  long  broken  series  of  divine 


MARK   1,  2.  3.  3 

commmiications  which  terminated  four  himdred  years  ago  in  jMalachi. 
The  prophecy  itself  (Mah  3,  1)  is  slightly  varied,  not  in  substance  but 
in  form,  by  being  addressed  to  the  JMessiah  as  a  pledge  or  promise, 
which,  though  not  expressed,  is  really  involved  in  the  original.  Beliolcl, 
in  Greek  as  well  as  Hebrew,  introduces  something  unexpected  and 
surprising.  I  send  (am  sending  or  about  to  send),  the  verb  from  which 
ajjostle  is  derived  ;  my  messenger,  the  Gi'eek  word  commonly  translated 
angel^  which  is  indeed  a  mere  abbreviation  of  it,  but  here  used  in  its 
primary  and  wider  sense.  The  original  passage  predicts  the  advent 
of  two  messengers  or  angels ;  the  angel  of  the  covenant,  who  is  also 
represented  as  the  Lord  of  the  temple,  and  another  who  was  to  prepare 
his  way  before  him.  These  two  are  here  identified,  the  one  expressly, 
and  the  other  by  necessary  impHcation.with  our  Lord  and  his  forerunner. 
Preimre.  an  expressive  Greek  verb,  meaning  to  make  full^'read}^,  to 
equip  or  furnish.  Tliy  icay,  thy  advent  or  appearance.  Before  thy 
face,  a  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  which  means  te- 
fore  in  application  both  to  time  and  space.  In  the  Hebrew  text  it 
stands  at  the  end  of  the  sentence,  in  the  oldest  copies  of  Mark  between 
the  clauses,  a  transposition  which  has  no  eifect  upon  the  meaning.  The 
repetition  in  the  common  text  is  found  neither  in  the  Hebrew  nor  in 
the  oldest  Greek  manuscripts. 

3.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare 
ye  the  way  of  tlie  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight. 

The  function  which  Malachi  ascribes  to  the  forerunner,  that  of 
preparing  the  Messiah's  way,  is  evidentl}^  borrowed  fiom  an  older 
prophecy,  still  extant  in  Isaiah  (40,  3),  which  jNIark  accoidingly  sub- 
joins, as  if  it  were  a  part  of  the  same  context,  and  as  being  really  the 
theme  of  which  the  later  passage  is  a  variation  or  a  new  edition. 
Isaiah's  words  arc  commonly  referred  to  the  return  from  Babvlon,  of 
which,  however,  there  is  no  express  mention  in  the  text  or  context. 
The  image  really  presented  to  the  prophet  is  that  of  God  returning  to 
Jerusalem,  revisiting  his  people,  as  he  did- in  every  signal  manifestation 
of  his  presence,  but  above  all  at  the  advent  of  Messiah,  and  the 
opening  of  the  new  dispensation,  of  which  John  the  Baptist  was  the 
herald  and  forerunner.  The  Toice  of  one  crying  is  the  Septuagint 
version  of  a  Hebrew  phrase  which  might  be  more  exactly  rendered 
a  voice  crying.  (The  oldest  English  versions  have  a  crier.)  It  is  a 
kind  of  exclamation,  as  if  he  had  said  hark  I  one  cries  (or  is  crying.) 
In  the  wilderness,  both  in  the  literal  sense,  thereb}''  identifying  John 
as  the  subject  of  the  prophecy,  and  in  the  moral  sense  of  spiritual 
desolation,  in  the  midst  of  which,  or  through  which,  God  was  to  re- 
turn to  them.  Prepare,  not  the  same  Greek  verb  that  is  used  in  the 
preceding  verse,  although  Isaiah  and  JMalachi  employ  the  same  Hebrew 
one,  denoting  a  specific  kind  of  preparation,  that  of  clearing  a  road  by 
the  removal  of  obstructions.  This  was  to  be  done  by  repentance  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  and  by  preaching  repentance  on  the  part  of  the 


4  M  A  R  K  1,  3.  4. 

forerunner.  Malce  straight^  in  Hebrew  one  word,  stralgJite?!,  rectify, 
in  reference  either  to  obliquity  of  course  or  unevenness  of  surface,  more 
probably  the  latter,  as  expressed  in  English  by  the  verb  to  level.  Paths, 
or  worn  ways,  beaten  tracks,  as  the  Greek  verb  properly  denotes. 
The  corresponding  Hebrew  word  is  in  the  singular,  and  means  an 
artificial  causeway  or  high  road.  His  j^aths,  in  the  original,  a  Jiiglncay 
for  our  God.  These  two  predictions  are  combined  by  Mark,  not  inad- 
vertently, much  less  through  ignorance  or  by  mistake,  as  some  have 
foolishly  imagined,  but  from  a  clear  view  of  their  mutual  relation,  as 
distinct  and  distant  but  harmonious  predictions  of  the  same  event, 
which  might  therefore  be  regarded,  after  the  fulfilment,  as  parts  of 
one  and  the  same  prophetic  utterance.  The  subordinate  relation  of 
the  later  to  the  earlier  prophecy  as  such,  though  equally  inspired, 
would  account  for  the  reading,  in  Isaiali  the  'prophet^  found  in  some  old 
copies,  and  regarded  as  the  true  text  by  the  latest  critics.  (A  still 
stronger  case  of  the  same  kind  occurs  in  Matt.  27,  9.) 

4.  John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  and  preach  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

As  it  was  thus  written  centuries  before,  so  was  it  now  fulfilled. 
As  Isaiah  in  prophetic  vision  heard  the  voice  of  one  summoning  the  people 
to  prepare  the  Lord's  way,  and  as  Malachi  beheld  one  messenger  or 
angel  preparing  the  way  for  another,  so  in  due  time  this  preparatory 
process  really  began  in  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist.  ^Vas  (be- 
came or  came)  Jjaptizing^  i.  e.  exercising  his  ministrj^,  of  which  baptism 
was  the  badge  or  seal.  In  outward  conformity  to  the  prediction,  he 
appeared  in  the  wilderness,  i.  e.  as  we  learn  from  Matthew  (3,  1),  the 
wilderness  of  Judea.  a  phrase  sometimes  denoting  the  whole  desert 
region  west  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  sometimes  a  particular  division  of 
it,  here  most  probably  the  trtict  along  the  Jordan  north  of  the  Dead 
Sea.  Preaching,  proclaiming,  publicly  announcing.  The  idea  of  in- 
viting and  exhorting,  though  implied,  is  not  expressed.  BajJtism, 
symbolical  or  ceremonial  washing,  such  as  the  Mosaic  law  prescribed 
as  a  sign  of  moral  renovation,  and  connected  with  the  sacrificial  types 
of  expiation,  to  indicate  the  internal  connection  of  atonement  and 
sanctitication.  It  was  from  these  familiar  and  significant  ablutions 
that  John's  baptism  was  derived,  and  not  from  the  practice  of  baptiz- 
ing proselytes,  the  antiquity  of  which  as  a  distinct  rite  is  disputed. 
Baptism  (not  the  laptism)  of  repentance,  i.  e.  a  ceremonial 
washing,  which  involved  and  denoted  a  profession  of  repentance, 
or  a  thorough  change  of  mind,  both  of  judgment  and  of  feeling,  with 
respect  to  sin.  7'o  (^or  for)  remission,  i.  e.  with  a  view  to  it  or  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  it,  not  directl}''  or  efficiently,  but  as  an  indispen- 
sable prerequisite.  Jiemission,  loosing,  leaving,  i.  e.  letting  go  unpun- 
ished, which  is  essentially  the  same  with  pardon  or  forgiveness.  Oj 
sins,  without  the  article,  not  the  sins,  i.  e.  some  sins,  or  the  sins  of  some 
offenders,  but  of  sins  in  general.     The  indefinite  expressions  of  this 


MARK   1,  4.  5.  5 

clause  (a  haptism  of  repentance  for  remission  of  sins)  are  not  immean- 
ini?  or  fortuitous,  but  designed  to  introduce  John's  ministry  as  some- 
thing new  and  previous!}^  unknown  to  the  reader.  The  meaning  of 
the  verse,  as  thus  explained,  is  that  the  ancient  prophecies  just  quoted 
were  fulfilled  in  the  appearance  of  a  preacher  in  the  wilderness  calling 
the  people  to  repent,  and  baptizing  them  in  token  of  their  having  done 
so.  Mark,  like  Matthew  (3,  1),  introduces  John  abruptly,  as  demand- 
ing notice  only  in  connection  with  his  public  work  and  that  of  Christ ; 
while  Luke  (1,  5-28,  39-80),  as  a  professed  historian,  gives  a  full 
account  of  his  extraction,  birth,  and  early  training  for  his  office. 

5.  And  there  went  out  unto  liim  all  tlie  land  of  Judea, 
and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in 
the  river  of  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins. 

Having  designated  the  place  and  described  in  general  terms  the 
nature  and  design  of  John's  preparatory  ministry,  Mark  now  informs 
us  how  it  was  received  and  what  were  its  effects.  The  statement 
relates  only  to  Judea.  as  the  province  within  which  John  began  his 
ministrations,  although  in  a  desert  part  of  it.  The  effect  produced 
there  is  described  as  universal,  the  whole  population  going  out  to  him 
from  town  and  country.  All  the  land  of  Jvdea  or  Judean  district, 
territory,  province.  This  was  the  southern  portion  of  the  land  between 
the  Jordan  and  the  Mediterranean.  It  derived  its  name  from  the  tribe 
of  Judah,  to  which  it  was  assigned  on  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by 
Joshua,  although  several  smaller  tribes  were  partially  or  wholly 
settled  within  its  limits,  namely,  Dan  and  Simeon,  while  the  portion 
of  Benjamin  adjoined  it  on  the  north.  After  the  schism  on  the  death 
of  Solomon,  this  whole  southern  district  adhered  to  the  theocrac}^, 
and  constituted  the  territory  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  Under  the 
Syrian  and  Roman  domination,  it  retained  its  old  name  in  the  Greek  or 
Latin  form  of  Judea,  which  is  here  used  in  its  primary  sense  as  an 
adjective  agreeing  with  the  noun  land  (or  2}^'ovince).  By  a  figure  of 
speech  common  in  all  languages,  the  country  is  put  for  its  population. 
I'/ie  Jerusalemites,  or  people  of  Jerusalem,  are  not  distinguished  from 
the  Judeans,  under  whom  they  were  included,  but  merely  rendered 
prominent  among  them  as  the  people  of  the  capital  and  holy  city.  All 
Judea,  and  among  (or  above)  the  rest,  the  people  of  Jerusalem.  A 
like  combination  of  the  same  names  frequently  occurs  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. (See  for  instance  the  titles  or  inscriptions  in  Isaiah  1,  I.  2, 1.  3, 
1.)  It  was  characteristic  of  John's  ministry,  that  he  did  not  seek  the 
people  but  was  sought  by  them,  in  which  respect  he  was  a  type  or 
emblem  of  the  law  with  its  restrictive  and  exclusive  institutions,  as 
distinguished  from  the  catholic  or  ecumenical  provisions  of  the  gospel. 
By  a  natural  hyperbole,  this  vast  concourse  is  described  as  submitting 
to  the  rite  which  John  administered,  not  as  an  empty  and  unmeaning 
form,  but  at  the  same  time  confessing  their  sins,  the  Greek  verb  being 
an  intensive  compound,  which  denotes  the  act  of  free  and  full  confes- 


6  MAR  K   1,  5.  C. 

sion  or  ncknowledgment.  This,  which  is  prescribed  as  a  condition, 
although  not  a  n)critorious  ground,  of  pardon  (Prov.  28, 13.  1  John 
1,  0).  is  therefore  one  of  the  best  tokens  of  repentance.  Tlie  Titter 
Jordan  is  the  only  considerable  stream  of  Palestine,  rising  near  the 
base  of  Blount  Hermon,  flowing  southward  in  a  double  bed  or  valley, 
with  a  deep  and  rajiid  curi'ent,  through  the  lakes  of  jMerom  and  Tibe- 
rias, into  the  Dead  Sea.  Recent  surveys  and  measurements  have 
shown  that  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  with  its  lakes,  is  much  below 
the  level  of  the  Mediterranean.  This  famous  river  formed  the  eastern 
limit  of  the  province  of  Judea,  and  was  probably  the  nearest  water  to 
the  desert  tract  where  John  had  made  his  first  appearance.  It  was  on 
account  of  this  local  contiguit}',  and  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
crowds  attending  him,  that  John  baptized  there,  and  not  for  the  con- 
venience of  immersion.  Even  those  who  plead  for  its  necessity  main- 
tain that  the  three  thousand  converts  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were 
thus  baptized  at  Jerusalem,  where  there  is  not  only  no  great  river  but 
a  very  scant  supply  of  water.  Baptized^  i.  e.  bathed  or  washed  as  a 
religious  rite.  Even  admitting  that  the  word  originally  means  im- 
mersed, and  that  the  first  converts  were  in  fact  immersed,  both  which 
are  doubtful  and  disputed  points,  it  no  more  follows  that  this  mode  of 
washing  was  essential  to  the  rite,  than  that  every  elder  must  be  an 
old  man,  or  that  the  Lord's  supper  can  be  lawfully  administered  only 
in  the  evening.  An  analoa-ous  change  in  the  fiimiliar  dialect  of  com- 
mon  life  is  furnished  by  an  English  phrase,  to  talce  (or  drinlt)  tea^  which 
is  frequently  employed  where  no  tea  is  consumed  at  all,  the  essential 
idea  being  that  of  a  social  evening  meal,  and  the  particular  refreshment 
a  mere  incident.  The  extent  of  the  effect  ascribed  in  this  verse  to 
the  ministry  of  John  is  not  to  be  explained  awaj^  as  an  extravagant 
hyperbole,  but  must  be  understood  as  almost  if  not  absolutely  universal. 
It  seems  to  have  entered  into  the  divine  plan,  with  respect  both  to 
Christ  and  his  forerunner,  that  the  whole  mass  of  the  chosen  race, 
with  few  if  any  individual  exceptions,  should  be  brought  within  the 
sphere  of  their  official  ministry.  If  all  Judea  and  Jerusalem  does  not 
mean  every  individual,  it  must  at  least  mean  something  more  than 
many^  namely,  the  great  bulk  and  body  of  the  population.  Matthew's 
account  of  the  attendance  on  the  ministry  of  John  is  equally  emphatic, 
and  perhaps  still  moie  so,  as  it  adds  to  the  two  terms  employed  by 
Mark,  all  the  country  ahout  Jordan,  which  would  seem  to  include 
at  least  a  portion  of  Perea,  the  Greek  name  of  the  province  l}' ing  east- 
ward of  the  river.  Luke  does  not  formally  affii-m  but  presupposes 
the  vast  concourse,  when  he  tells  us  what  John  said  to  the  croicds 
(or  multitudes)  going  out  to  l)e  hajitized  iy  him.  (Matt.  3,  5.  6. 
Luke  3,  7.) 

6.  And  Joliii  was  clotlied  with  camel's  hair,  and  with 
a  girdle  of  a  skin  about  his  loins  ;  and  he  did  eat  locusts 
and  wild  honey ; 

He  wlio  was  thus'  honored,  both  by  God  and  man,  far  from  being 


MARK   1,  6.  7 

"  clothed  in  soft  raiment,"  or  "  gorgeously  apparelled,"  and  "  living 
delicately"  (Luke  7,  25),  was  distinguished  hy  the  plainness  of  his 
food  and  dress.  He  wore  the  coarsest  kind  of  sackcloth  made  of 
camel's  hair,  still  in  use  among  the  Arabs  of  the  desert,  fastened  round 
him  b}'  a  simple  belt  of  skin  or  leather,  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
"  purple  and  tine  linen  "  and  '^  embroidered  girdle"  (Ex.  39.  29)  of  the 
sacerdotal  dress,  and  of  the  fashionable  oriental  costume  (Ex.  39,  29. 
Luke  16,  19.)  In  both  parts  of  his  dress  here  mentioned,  John  re- 
sembled Elijah,  who  is  described  as  "  an  hairy  man  (i.  e.  clothed  in  hair 
cloth,  as  appears  from  what  follows),  and  girt  with  a  girdle  of  leather 
about  his  loins  "  (2  Kings  1,  8.)  This  is  commonly  explained  as  the 
official  costume  of  an  ancient  prophet  (compare  Zech.  13,  4)  ;  but  as 
Ahaziah,  when  he  heard  the  description  of  his  servants,  instantly  ex- 
claimed, '^  It  is  Elijah  the  Tishbite  !  "  it  would  seem  to  have  been  some- 
thing distinctive  of  his  person  and  not  merely  of  his  office.  Now 
Elijah  is  conspicuous  in  the  history  of  Israel  as  a  reformer,  and  a 
preacher  of  repentance,  sent  to  (or  raised  up  in)  the  apostate  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes,  to  convince  them  of  their  sin,  and  warn  them  of  the 
wrath  to  come.  Of  this  stern  mission  hi;s  very  dress  was  a  badge  or 
symbol ;  so  was  his  austere  and  secluded  life,  especially  his  dwelling 
in  the  wilderness,  when  not  engaged  in  some  prophetic  function  else- 
where. Now  the  last  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  in  addition  to 
the  promise  of  two  messengers  or  angels,  which  has  been  already 
quoted  and  explained  (on  v.  2),  closes  the  canon  with  a  solemn  predic- 
tion that  Elijah  the  prophet  should  appear  again  (Mai.  4,  5.  0.)  This 
last  prophetic  utterance  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  kept  the  national 
hopes  upon  the  stretch  throughout  the  interval  of  four  hundred  years, 
during  which  the  gift  of  prophecy  was  in  abeyance.  In  the  time  of 
Christ  it  was  the  teaching  of  the  scribes  that  Elijah  was  to  come  as 
the  forerunner  of  Messiah ;  but  our  Lord  taught  his  disciples  that  he 
had  alreadj^  come  in  the  person  of  John  the  Baptist,  of  whom  it  was 
predicted  by  the  Angel  that  he  should  go  before  the  Lord  in  the  spirit 
and  power  of  Elijah,  to  eflEect  the  very  change  foretold  by  Malachi- 
(See  Matt.  17,  10-13.  Luke  1,  17.)  We  iind  accordingly  that  John 
conformed  to  his  example  even  in  externals,  as  to  place  of  residence 
and  style  of  dress,  not  for  the  sake  of  a  mere  personal  resemblance, 
but  to  symbulize  the  rigour  and  austerity  belongmg  to  the  system  of 
which-  they  were  both  types  and  representatives-  This  view  of  the 
matter  will  suffice  to  show  that  the  description  which  the  gospels  give 
of  John's  dress  is  not  superliuous  embellishment,  but  intended  to 
identify  two  distant  but  closely  related  points  of  sacred  history.  The 
analogy,  though  less  precise,  is  no  less  real,  in  relation  to  the  food  of 
the  two  prophets.  As  Elijah  lived  in  a  precarious  manner,  sometimes 
dependent  upon  miracle  for  food  (1  Kings  17,  6.  16.  19,  G),  so  John 
subsisted  upon  aliment  the  most  remote  from  that  in  common  use,  at 
least  in  towns  and  civilized  society.  The  attempts  which  have  been 
made  to  explain  locusts  as  denoting  some  kind  of  bread,  or  of  wild 
fruit,  are  equally  superfluous  and  unsuccessful.  The  Greek  word  is 
Ihe  common  one  for  locusts,  which  are  still  eaten  by  the  Arabs  of  the 


8  M  A  K  K   1,  G.  7. 

desert.  Wild  lioncy  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  a  vegetable  exudation, 
sometimes  so  called ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  sutficient  reason  for 
departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the  name  as  denoting  the  honey 
made  by  bees,  not  in  hives  or  under  human  care,  but  in  the  I'ocks 
and  forests  of  the  wilderness.  The  whole  impression  made  by  these 
details  is  that  of  an  austere  simplicity,  implying  separation  from  the 
ordinary'-  habits  and  abodes  of  men.  Matthew's  account  (3,  4)  is  per- 
fectly coincident  with  Mark's  in  substance,  although  so  far  different 
in  form,  and  even  in  grammatical  construction,  as  to  show  that  one 
did  not  copy  from  the  other. 

7.  And  preacliecl,  saying,  There  cometli  one  mightier 
than  I  after  me,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  stoop  down  and  unloose. 

While  Matthew  and  Luke  here  insert  .John's  severe  denunciation 
and  impassioned  warning,  addressed  to  both  the  great  contending 
parties  in  the  Jewish  church,  and  Luke  adds  his  reply  to  the  inquiries 
put  to  him  by  various  classes,  with  a  beautiful  description  of  the 
popular  suspicion  that  this  might  be  the  Messiah  (Matt.  3,  7-10.  Luke 
3,  7-15),  Mark  simply  gives  the  sum  and  substance  of  his  preaching, 
also  given  by  the  others,  and  almost  in  the  same  terms,  though  not 
precisely  in  the  same  order.  Having  said  before  (in  v.  4)  that  John 
was  (or  came)  2)reacMng,  he  now  tells  how  and  what  he  preached,  not 
by  reporting  all  that  John  said,  even  upon  any  one  occasion,  but  by 
summing  it  all  up  in  a  single  sentence,  which  he  may  or  may  not  have 
delivered,  once  or  often,  totidem  verbis.  The  summary  thus  given 
is  that  John's  whole  ministry  was  relative,  prospective,  and  prepara- 
tory ;  that  he  was  not  a  principal  but  a  dependent ;  further  removed 
from  his  superior  in  rank  than  the  humblest  domestic  from  his  master ; 
and  that  the  same  relation  existed  between  the  ministry  and  acts  of 
the  two  parties.  That  he  preached  repentance  is  implied  or  presup- 
posed, as  having  been  already  stated  (in  v.  4) ;  but  even  this  he  did  as 
a  forerunner.  There  cometh  (or  is  yet  to  come)  t7ie  mightier  (or  stronger 
one)  than  /,  not  indefinitely  one  mightier^  but  specifically,  the  mightier^ 
i.  e.  my  superior,  the  principal  of  whom  I  am  the  herald  and  fore- 
runner. But  as  this  relation  might  exist  between  two  persons  nearly 
equal,  or  entirely  so  except  in  this  particular  association,  John  goes 
further,  and  assures  them  that  the  difi'erence  is  not  merely  that  of  first 
and  second,  but  of  master  and  servant,  nay,  still  more  distinct  and 
distant.  For  the  meanest  slave  might  loose  the  strap  which  bound 
his  master's  sandals  to  the  soles  of  his  feet ;  but  to  stoop  for  such  a 
purpose,  in  the  presence  of  John's  master,  was  too  great  an  honour 
even  for  the  man  whom  all  Judea  and  Jerusalem  had  crowded  forth 
to  be  instructed  and  baptized  by.  To  an  oriental  audience  words 
could  hardly  have  expressed  the  idea  of  disparity  in  a  stronger  or  a 
more  revolting  manner.  That  John  should  have  made  such  a  profes- 
sion of  his  own  inferiority,  not  once  but  often,  in  the  presence  of  the 


MARK   1,  7.  8.  9 

people,  and  in  the  hcii^ht  of  his  amazing  popularity,  implies  their  dis- 
position to  regard  and  rest  in  him  as  the  expected  saviour;  his  own 
clear  view  of  the  subordinate  relation  which  he  bore  to  Christ;  and 
his  sincere  and  humble  resolution  to  maintain  it,  even  in  the  face  of 
popular  applause  and  admiration,  and  amidst  the  most  enticing  oppor- 
tunities of  self-aggrandizement. 

8.  I  indeed  have  baptized  yoii  with  water :  but  he 
sliall  baptize  joii  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

What  was  true  of  the  persons  was  no  less  true  of  the  acts  which 
they  performed,  and  the  eifects  which  they  produced.  If  John  was 
less,  compared  with  Christ,  than  the  meanest  slave  compared  with  his 
own  master,  what  he  did  even  by  divine  authority  and  as  the  Lord's 
legitiuiate  forerunner,  must  be  proportionabl}'  less  than  what  liis  prin- 
cipal would  do,  as  to  intrinsic  worth  and  power.  The  idea  of  contrast 
is  enhanced  by  the  very  structure  of  the  sentence,  which  exhibits  the 
favorite  antithesis  of  Greek  prose  composition,  marked  by  corre- 
sponding particles  {niv  and  hi),  I  indeed 'but  he^  &c.     Common 

to  both  persons  is  the  act  of  baptism  (/  baptized he  icill  hcqj- 

tize.)  The  point  of  diiference,  according  to  the  strict  sense  of  the 
words,  is  the  baptismal  element  or  fluid  ;  in  the  one  case  water  ;  in  the 
other,  lioly  siyirit^  or  {tlie)  Iloly  Spirit ;  for  although  the  article  is 
not  expressed  in  any  of  the  Gospels,  yet  the  constant  use  of  this 
phrase  to  denote  a  divine  person  has  almost  rendered  it  a  proper 
name,  and  as  such  not  needing  to  be  rendered  defiuite  by  any  prefix 
like  a  common  noun.  The  antithesis  is  then  not  only  between  water 
and  spiiit,  but  between  dead  matter  and  a  divine  person,  a  disparity 
beyond  all  computation  or  expression.  And  even  taking  lioly  spirit 
in  a  lower  and  a  more  generic  sense,  we  have  a  contrast  almost  infi- 
nite. Now  this  extreme,  incalculable  diflference  seems  to  be  predicated 
of  baptism  as  administered  by  John  and  Christ.  But  Christ  baptized 
only  by  the  hands  of  his  disciples  (John  4,  2),  and  this  of  course  was  no 
less  water-baptism  than  that  administered  by  John.  The  contrast 
therefore  cannot  be  between  John's  baptism  as  performed  with  water, 
and  that  of  Christ  (or  his  disciples)  as  performed  without  it.  Nor  can 
it  be  intended  to  contrast  Christ's  baptism,  as  attended  by  a  spiritual 
influence,  with  that  of  John,  as  unattended  by  it,  which  would  then 
be  worthless ;  whereas  it  is  proved  to  be  essentially  identical  with 
Christian  baptism  by  its  source,  its  effects,  and  its  reception  by  our 
Lord  himself.  There  are  still  two  wa3^s  in  which  the  verse  may  be 
explained,  and  each  of  which  has  had  its  advocates.  The  first  sup- 
poses the  antithesis  to  be,  not  between  the  baptism  of  John  and  that 
of  Christ,  which  were  essentially  the  same,  but  between  the  adminis- 
tering persons.  '  I  baptize  you  in  water,  not  without  meaning  and 
effect,  but  an  effect  dependent  on  a  higher  power;  he  will  baptize  you 
in  the  same  way  and  with  like  effect,  but  in  the  exercise  of  an  inherent 
power,  that  of  his  own  Spirit.'  This  construction,  though  it  yields  a 
9* 


10  MARK   1,  8.  9. 

good  sense  and  conveys  <a  certain  truth,  is  not  so  obvious  and  natural 
as  that  which  supposes  no  allusion  to  the  outward  rite  of  Christian 
baptism  at  all.  but  a  comparison  between  that  rite,  as  John  performed 
it,  and  the  gift  of  spiritual  iufluences,  figuratively  called  a  baiJtism,  as 
the  same  term  is  applied  to  suffering  (Matt.  20.  22.  23.  Luke  12,  50.) 
The  meaning  then  i.s,  '  I  indeed  bathe  3'our  bodies  in  water,  not  without 
divine  authority  or  spiritual  effect  ;  but  he  whose  way  I  am  preparing, 
is  so  for  superior  both  in  power  and  office,  that  he  will  bathe  3'Our 
very  souls  in  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Since  this  divine  influ- 
ence is  always  represented  in  the  Old  Testament,  either  as  an  unction 
or  as  an  effusion,  it  could  hardly  be  otherwise  conceived  of  here  ;  and 
as  the  figurative  baptism  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  must  coi-respond 
in  form  Avith  the  literal  baptism  mentioned  in  the  first,  we  have  here 
an  incidental  proof  that  primitive  baptism  was  not  exclusively  or 
necessarily  immersion. 


9.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  Jesns  came 
from  Xazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in 
Jordan. 

The  transition  from  John's  ministr}''  to  that  of  Christ  is  furnished 
by  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  himself,  as  the  most  important  public  act 
of  the  former,  and  an  immediate  preparation  for  the  latter.  At  the  same 
time  it  afforded  the  most  striking  conlirmation  of  what  John  himself 
had  taught  as  to  his  own  inferioi'ity,  by  means  of  an  cxfiress  divine 
recognition  of  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah.  But  this  was  not  the  only  nor 
perhaps  the  chief  end  of  our  Lord's  subjection  to  this  ceremonial  form. 
Though  without  sins  of  his  own  to  be  confessed,  repented  of,  or  par- 
doned, he  identified  himself  by  this  act  with  his  people  whom  he  came 
to  save  from  sin  (Matt.  1,  21)  ;  and  gave  them  an  assurance  of  that  great 
deliverance  ;  avowed  his  own  subjection  to  the  law,  as  the  expression 
of  his  Father's  will  (Matt.  3, 15),  and  put  honour  upon  John  as  a  divinely 
inspired  prophet  and  his  own  forerunner.  Mark's  account  of  this  trans- 
action, although  somewhat  more  minute  than  Luke's,  is  not  so  full  as 
Matthew's,  since  it  passes  over  the  preceding  conversation  between  John 
and  Jesus  (Matt.  3,  14-15.)  On  the  other  hand,  it  mentions  the  pre- 
cise part  of  Galilee  from  which  he  came  to  be  baptized  in  Jordan. 
This  was  Nazareth,  the  small  town  where  Joseph  and  Maiy  lived 
before  the  birth  of  Christ  (Luke,  1.  2G.  27).  and  where  they  again  took 
up  their  abode  on  their  return  from  Egypt  (Matt.  2,  23.  Luke  2,  39.  51.) 
The  place  can  still  be  certainly  identified  in  a  small  valley  shut  in  by 
hills,  on  the  northern  edge  of  the  great  plain  of  Jezreel  or  Esdraelon, 
midway  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  In  (or 
into)  the  Jordan  does  not  necessarily  imply  immersion,  as  the  most 
convenient  method  even  of  affu.sion  was  to  stand  in  the  water  (com- 
pare Acts  8,  30-30).  especially  for  those  who  wore  the  flowing  oriental 
dress,  and  either  sandals  or  no  covering  of  the  feet  at  all.  Cut  even  if 
John  did  submerge  his  converts,  this  was  no  more  essential  to  the  rite 


MARK   1,  9.  10.  11.  11 

than  entire  nudity,  as  still  practised  by  the  bathers  in  the  Jordan. 
The  two  things  naturally  go  together,  and  immersion  without  stripping 
seems  to  rob  the  rite  in  part  of  its  supposed  significance. 

10.  And  straightway  coming  np  out  of  tlic  water,  he 
saw  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Spirit  like  a  dove  de- 
scending upon  him. 

Tiie  baptism  itself  was  followed  by  an  audible  and  visible  divine 
recognition  of  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah,  which  is  said  to  have  occurred 
immediately,  a  favourite  word  of  Mark's,  in  whose  gospel  it  occurs  more 
frequently  than  in  all  the  others  put  together,  although  here  common 
to  the  three  Evangelists.  That  it  is  to  be  strictly  understood  appears 
fi-om  the  additional  specification  coming  up  from  tlis  water,  not  neces- 
sarily/ro^?^  under  it,  although  he  may  have  done  so,  but  away  from  it, 
which  is  the  strict  sense  of  the  preposition  (aTro),  or  according  to 
another  ancient  reading  (tV),  out  of  it,  i.  e.  from  standing  in  it,  as 
explained  above.  The  lieavens.  a  plural  form  borrow^ed  from  the  He- 
brew, in  which  the  corresponding  name  has  no  singular,  and  therefore 
simply  equivalent  to  sl:y.  Opened^  the  expression  used  by  Luke  (3, 
21),  and  Matthew  (3.  16),  is  not  so  strong  as  that  of  Mark,  correctly 
rendered  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible,  rent  or  cloven.  (Wiclif, 
cleft.')  The  Greek  verb  is  the  root  of  the  noun  schism,  and  is  itself 
applied  to  moral  and  religious  changes  (Acts,  14,4.  23,  7.)  The  phrase 
as  here  used  cannot  possibly  denote  a  flash  of  lightning,  or  the  shining 
of  the  stars,  or  any  thing  whatever,  but  an  apparent  separation  or 
division  of  the  visible  expanse  of  heaven ;  how  occasioned  or  pro- 
duced can  only  be  conjectured.  It  seems  to  be  here  spoken  of  as  if 
beheld  by  Jesus  only  ;  but  in  Matthew  and  Luke  the  language  is  more 
general,  and  John  expressly  says  that  the  Baptist  was  to  see  and  did 
see  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  (John,  1,  32.  33.)  As  a  dove,  in  form, 
and  not  as  some  suppose,  in  motion  merel}^,  which  w^ould  convey  no 
definite  idea.  The  choice  of  a  dove  as  a  visible  emblem  of  the  Spirit 
has  been  variously  explained  as  referring  to  its  gentleness,  and  the 
corresponding  quality  of  Christ's  own  ministry  (compare  Matthew, 
12,  19)  ;  to  the  brooding  of  the  Spirit  on  the  w^aters  at  the  time  of  the 
creation  (Gen.  1,  2)  ;  to  the  dove  which  Noah  sent  forth  from  the 
ark  (Gen.  8,  8. 12)  ;  to  the  use  of  the  same  bird  in  sacrifice  (Lev.  1,  14.) 
The  truth  taught  by  the  visible  descent  was  the  personal  union  of  the 
Son  and  Spirit,  and  the  spiritual  influences  under  w^hich  the  Son  was 
to  perform  his  mission.  < 

11.  And  there  came  a  voice  from  heaven  (saying),  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased. 

The  visible  presence  of  the  Spirit  was  attended  by  an  audible  tes- 
timony from  the  Father,  in  a  voice  which  came  or  became  (audible) 
from  the  (rent  or  opened)  heavens.    Thou  art  my  Son,  the  very  words 


12  MARK   1,  11.  12.  13. 

addressed  to  the  Messiah  in  Ps.  2,  7,  and  from  which  the  Son  of  God 
became  one  of  his  standing  appellations.  (See  above,  on  v.  1,  and 
below,  on  3,  11.  5,  7.  14,  Gl.  15,  39.)  The  other  words  (translated  in 
the  older  English  versions,  thou  art  my  dear  Son  in  ichom  I  delight). 
are  also  borrowed  from  a  jMessianic  prophecy  (Tsa.  42,  1),  and  describe 
him  not  only  as  an  object  of  affection  to  the  Father,  which,  indeed,  is 
necessarily  implied  in  that  relation,  but  as  an  object  of  supreme  com- 
placency and  approbation  in  the  official  character  which  he  had  under- 
taken. The  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critics  read  in  thee  (like 
Luke)  and  not  m  inho)?i  (like  Matthew.)  Thus  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
besides  the  other  purposes  already  mentioned,  was  the  occasion  of  his 
public  recognition  and  authoritative  attestation,  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
as  the  true  Messiah,  before  he  entered  on  the  actual  discharge  of  his 
official  functions. 

12.  And  irnmediately  the  Spirit  dnvetli  him  into  the 
wilderness. 

13.  And  lie  was  there  in  the  wilderness  forty  days 
tempted  of  Satan  ;  and  was  with  the  wild  beasts  :  and  the 
angels  ministered  nnto  him. 

Another  preliminary  to  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  a  link  connect- 
ing it  with  that  of  John,  is  his  temptation,  of  which  Luke  and  JNIatthew 
give  detailed  accounts,  but  Mark  only  a  brief  summary,  though  quite 
sufficient  to  complete  the  chain  of  introductory  events  which  he  is  here 
constructing.  As  his  recognition  by  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  followed 
immediately  upon  his  baptism,  so  it  was  itself  immediately  followed 
by  his  visit  to  the  wilderness.  DHveth^  literally  casts  out  or  expels 
(Wiclif,  putted  forth),  a  strong  expression  for  strong  impulse  urging 
him  in  that  direction.  The  Spirit  does  not  mean  his  own  mind,  much 
less  the  evil  spirit,  but  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which  he  was  now  full 
(Luke  4,  1.)  The  agency  ascribed  to  this  divine  person  is  not  that  of 
tempting  him  (James  1,  13),  but  simply  that  of  bringing  him  to  the 
appointed  scene  of  the  temptation.  The  desert  may  be  either  that 
already  mentioned  as  the  place  where  John  was  preaching,  or  a  portion 
of  the  great  Arabian  desert,  which  would  render  still  more  striking  the 
analogy  with  the  forty  days'  fast  of  Moses  and  Elijah  in  the  peninsula 
of  Sinai  (Ex.  24, 18.  1  Kings  19,  8.)  This  analogy  was  no  doubt  meant 
to  fix  attention  on  our  Lord's  prophetic  ministry,  as  similar  in  nature, 
though  superior  in  dignity,  to  that  of  the  old  prophets,  and  presenting 
strong  points  of  resemblance  even  in  externals.  As  Moses  was  pre- 
pared for  the  work  of  legislation  and  Elijah  for  that  of  reformation,  by 
fasting  and  seclusion  in  the  desert  for  the  space  of  forty  days,  so  it 
pleased  God  that  his  Son  should  be  prepared  for  his  still  more  impor- 
tant work  by  a  process  of  the  same  kind.  Being  tempted,  either  during 
this  whole  term,  which  is  the  natural  meaning  of  the  words  used  by 
Mark  and  Luke  (4.  2),  or  at  its  close,  the  idea  suggested  by  the  words 
of  Matthew  (4,  2.)     Both  statements  may  indeed  be  true,  i.  e.  he  may 


MARK   1,  13.  14.  13 


have  been  assailed  by  temptation  during  the  whole  period,  but  in  a 
more  concentrated,  palpable  form,  at  its  conclusion.  The  enemy  was 
not  a  human  tempter,  or  the  suggestion  of  his  own  mind,  which  wag 
wholly  free  from  error  and  corruption  ;  but  the  adversary  of  the  human 
race,  as  such  called  Satan,  and  as  its  slanderer  the  Devil.  AVhatever 
other  ends  may  have  been  answered  by  our  Lord's  temptation  in  the 
wilderness,  one  main  design  was  to  prefigure  and  exemplify  that  bitter 
and  protracted  warfare  which  had  been  predicted  just  after  the  fall, 
between  the  seed  of  tlie  serpent  and  the  seed  of  the  icoman  (Gen.  3,  15), 
the  former  including,  with  the  fallen  angels,  all  of  human  kind  who 
should  espouse  their  cause  and  yield  to  their  authority  ;  the  latter 
Christ  the  Head,  but  in  its  wider  sense  the  members  of  his  body. 
This  strife,  which  gives  complexion  to  all  later  history,  attains  its  crisis 
or  its  climax  in  the  ministry  of  Christ,  and  more  especially  in  those 
mysterious  conflicts  with  the  powers  of  darkness,  which  attended  its 
opening  and  its  close.  (See  below,  on  14,  32-36.)  The  victory  which 
Christ  achieved  in  this  contention  was  a  pledge  and  foretaste  of  the 
triumphs  in  reserve  for  all  who  trust  in  his  grace  and  follow  his 
example.  That  Tie  teas  icith  the  ieasts  is  mentioned  only  in  this  gospel, 
and  should  be  regarded  not  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  desert,  which 
would  be  superfluous  and  out  of  place  in  so  concise  a  narrative,  but 
rather  as  an  intimation  that  he  was  beyond  the  reach  of  human  help, 
and  cut  off  from  all  ordinary  sources  of  supply,  and  also  as  a  prepara- 
tory contrast  with  what  follows,  that  the  angels  icaited  on  him,  served 
him,  an  expression  which  is  specially  applied  in  usage  to  the  service  of 
the  table,  or  that  which  has  respect  to  the  supply  of  food,  and  there- 
fore possibly  involving  an  allusion  to  the  fast,  not  mentioned  here,  but 
explicitly  recorded  both  by  Luke  and  Matthew,  as  the  pretext  and 
occasion  of  the  first  temptation.  This  difference,  far  from  being  incon- 
sistent, as  some  writers  represent  it,  is  precisely  such  diversity  as  con- 
stantly occurs  between  the  most  harmonious  witnesses  in  courts  of 
justice,  one  supplying  what  the  other  has  omitted,  or  directly  stating 
what  the  other  only  hints  at.  An  old  ecclesiastical  tradition  gives  the 
name  of  Quarantania,  denoting  the  scene  of  our  Lord's  forty  days' 
fast,  to  a  desert  tract  between  Jerusalem  and  Jericho.  Another  ancient 
and  traditional  memorial  of  this  chapter  in  history  is  the  observance 
of  Lent  as  a  period  of  religious  abstinence. 

14.   Xow,  after  that  John  was  put  in  prison,  Jesns  came 
into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 

Having  thus  presented  the  preliminaries  of  our  Saviour's  ministry, 
jNlark  now  proceeds  to  the  ministry  itself,  which  is  the  great  theme  of 
his  narrative.  Like  Matthew  and  Luke,  he  seems  to  describe  it  as  be- 
ginning in  Galilee,  the  northern  province  of  the  land  of  Israel,  sep- 
arated from  Judea  by  the  district  of  Samaria.  But  we  learn  from 
John  (1.  19-52.  2, 13-25.  3,  1-36.  4,  1-42),  that  he  was  pubhcly  re- 
cognized by  his  forerunner  and  began  his  own  work  in  Judea.     This 


14  MARK   1,  14.  15. 

has  been  malovolcntl}'"  represented  as  a  contradiction  ;  but  in  neither 
of  the  first  three  gospels  is  it  said  that  this  was  his  first  appearance  as 
a  public  teacher ;  and  two  of  them  exphcitly  restrict  tlieir  narrative 
to  what  happened  after  John's  imprisonment  (compare  Matt.  4,  12), 
and  the  third  speaks  of  Jesus  as  returning  to  Gahlee  in  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  (Luke  4,  14),  which  implies  the  previous  exercise  of  his  official 
functions  elsewhere.  The  only  question  is,  why  the  first  three  gospels 
should  have  omitted  what  took  place  in  Judea,  and  begun  with  his 
appearance  in  Galilee.  So  far  as  this  demand  requires  or  admits  of 
any  answer,  it  is  furnished  by  the  obvious  considerations,  that  Christ's 
appearance  in  Judea  was  intended  merely  to  connect  his  ministry  with 
that  of  John,  by  letting  the  two  co-exist  or  overlap  each  other,  like 
the  two  dispensations  which  they  represented.  As  the  forms  of  the  Mo- 
saic Law  continued  to  exist  by  divine  authority  long  after  they  were 
virtuall}'  superseded  by  the  advent  of  Messiah  and  the  organization  of 
his  kingdom,  as  if  to  show  that  the  two  systems,  although  incompati- 
ble and  exclusive  of  each  other  as  permanent  institutions,  were  alike 
in  origin,  authority  and  purpose,  the  one  being  not  the  rival  or  the 
opposite,  but  the  completion  of  the  other  ;  so  our  Lord,  whose  presence 
was  to  supersede  the  ministry  of  John,  appeared  for  a  time  in  conjunc- 
tion with  him,  and  received  his  first  disciples  from  him.  as  a  proof  that 
John  had  only  begun  the  work  which  he  was  to  accomplish.  When 
this  joint  ministry,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  was  terminated  by  the  im- 
prisonment of  John,  our  Lord  passed  through  Samaria  into  Galilee, 
where  he  had  been  brought  up,  and  where  he  was  to  be  rejected  b}^  his 
neighbours  and  acquaintances  as  well  as  to  perform  the  greater  part  of 
his  prophetic  functions.  The  imprisonment  of  John  is  barely  men- 
tioned by  Mark  as  suggesting  the  time  and  the  occasion  of  our  Lord's 
withdrawing  from  Judea,  whereas  all  the  circumstances  are  related 
here  by  Luke  (3,  19.  20),  and  in  another  place  by  Matthew  (14,  3-5.) 
Put  in  prison  ( Wiclif  and  Tyndale,  talien)^  more  exactly  rendered  in 
the  Rhemish  version,  delucred  iqj^  i.  e.  by  Herod  to  the  jailer  (com- 
pare Luke  12,  58),  or  by  Providence  to  Herod  himself  (compare  Acts 
2.  2;].)  We  learn  from  John  (4,  1),  that  the  followers  of  Christ  al- 
ready outnumbered  those  of  his  forerunner  even  in  Judea,  and  that  the 
notice  taken  of  this  fact  by  the  dominant  party  of  the  Phari.sees  was 
one  cause  of  his  going  into  Galilee.  Preaching  the  gospel  of  the  Mng- 
doni  of  God.  i.  e.  proclaiming,  publishing  the  good  news  that  the  reign 
of  the  Messiah,  so  long  promised  by  the  prophets  and  expected  by  the 
people,  was  begun.    (See  Dan.  2.  44.  7, 13.  27.  9,  24-27.) 

15.  And  saying,  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  tlie  king- 
dom of  God  is  at  hand :  repent  ye,  and  believe  the 
gospel. 

As  in  the  case  of  John,  Mark  gives  the  theme  and  substance  of 
Christ's  preaching,  not  on  an}'-  one  occasion,  but  throughout  his  minis- 
try, or  at  least  in  its  commencement,  which  is  here  immcdiatcl}''  re- 


MARK   1,  15.  IG.  15 

ferred  to.  The  time  is  fulfilled^  i.  e.  the  set  or  appointed  time  for  the 
Messiah's  advent  has  arrived ;  his  reign  (or  that  of  God  in  him)  lim 
ajiproacJied,  is  at  hand,  nay.  is  actually  come.  This  eventful  crisis 
brought  with  it  certain  duties  and  responsibilities.  Repent^  including 
the  ideas  of  reflection,  afterthought,  and  change  of  mind.  i.  e.  of  judg- 
ment and  of  feehng,  upon  moral  subjects,  with  particular  reference  to 
the  character  and  conduct  of  the  penitent  himself.  Sori'ow  or  grief, 
although  a  necessary  incident,  is  not  the  essence  of  a  genuine  rcjient- 
ance.  (Wiclif  has,  do  penance  ;  the  Rhemish  version,  he  penitent ;  the 
Geneva  Bible,  amend  your  lives.)  Believe  the  gospel,  literally,  in  the 
gospel,  which  includes  not  only  its  reception  or  acknowledgment  as 
true,  but  rchance  on  it  as  a  means  of  safety  or  a  method  of  salvation. 
The  gospel,  this  good  news,  these  glad  tidings  of  Messiah's  advent  and 
the  erection  of  his  kingdom,  for  the  very  purpose  of  saving  his  people 
from  their  sins  (Matt.  1,  21.)  This  form  of  statement  seemed  to  show 
that  the  salvation  now  proclaimed  was  not  a  new  and  independent 
method  of  escape  from  sin  and  punishment,  but  one  which  had  been 
long  predicted  and  prefigured  in  the  old  economy. 


16.  E^ow  as  he  walked  by  tlie  sea  of  Galilee,  lie  saw 
Simon,  and  Andrew  his  brother,  casting  a  net  into  the 
sea  :  for  thej  were  fishers. 

Although  it  formed  no  part  of  our  Lord's  personal  mission  to  re- 
organize tiie  Church;  a  change  which  was  to  rest  upon  Ids  own  death 
as  a  corner-stone,  and  must  therefore  be  posterior  to  it,  he  prepared 
the  way  for  this  great  revolution  by  selecting  and  training  the  men  who 
should  accomplish  it.  Omitting  certain  pi-evious  steps  afterwards  sup- 
plied by  John  (1,  35-52),  Mark  proceeds  at  once  to  the  vocation  of 
the  first  apostles,  as  if  before  unknown,  but  not  expressly  so  described. 
This  kind  of  harmonious  variation  is  among  tlie  most  familiar  attri- 
butes of  credible  evidence  in  courts  of  justice,  though  absurdly  repre- 
sented by  the  German  sceptics  and  their  imitators  elsewhcie  as  an  irre- 
concilable contradiction.  The  rigid  application  of  the  same  lulc  would 
discredit  moie  than  half  the  testimony  now  received  as  valid  in  the 
courts  and  jury-rooms  of  England  and  America.  Walking  about,  not 
UstlessI}'^  or  idly,  but  in  the  performance  of  his  work  as  a  proclaimer 
or  announcer.  Along  the  sea  of  Galilee.^  the  lake  through  which  the 
Jordan  flows,  along  the  east  side  of  the  province  so  called  (see  above, 
on  V.  5.)  This  use  of  the  word  sea,  though  lost  in  modern  English,  is 
retained  in  German  (^8ee)  with  specific  reference  to  inland  lakes.  The 
one  here  meant  is  also  called  the  lake  of  Genessaret  (Luke  5.  1).  in 
Hebrew  Cinnereth  (Dent.  3,  17),  or  Ginneroth  (1  Kings  15,  2U),  from 
a  city  and  district  on  the  western  shore  (Josh.  19,  35.  Num.  34,  11.) 
A  third  name  is  the  sea  (or  lake)  of  Tilerias,  ficm  a  city  built  by 
Herod  on  the  southwest  shore,  and  named  in  honour  of  the  Emperui 
Tiberius  (John  6,  1.  21,  1.)  The  lake  is  about  twelve  miles  long  and 
half  as  many  wide,  in  a  deep  basin  surrounded  by  hills.     It  is  still 


16  MARK  1,  16.  17.  18. 

famous,  as  of  old,  for  its  clear  pure  water,  abundant  fish,  and  frequent 
storms.  From  among;  the  fishermen  on  this  lake  Christ  selected  his 
first  followers,  four  of  whom  are  here  named,  being  two  pairs  of 
brothers.  Simon,  a  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  Simeon,  which  is  some- 
times retained  in  reference  to  the  same  and  other  persons.  (Luke  2,  25. 
3,  30.  Acts  13,  1.  15,  14.  2  Pet.  1,  1.  Rev.  7,  7.)  Andrew  is  an  old 
Greek  name  (Andreas),  showing  the  knowledge  of  that  language  in 
Palestine,  and  furnishing  an  instance  of  the  Jewish  practice  of  adopt- 
ing Gentile  names,  either  exclusively  or  in  conjunction  with  their 
native  ones.  Simon,  though  first  named  here,  and  afterwards  the  fore- 
man of  the  apostolical  body,  had  been  previously  brought  to  Christ  by 
Andrew,  one  of  the  two  disciples  of  John  who  heard  him  bear  witness 
to  Jesus  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  and  followed  him  (John  1,  35-43.) 
After  this  first  acquaintance  they  appear  to  have  continued  their  em- 
ployment on  the  lake,  perhaps  expecting  such  a  call  as  the  one  here 
recorded.  Casting  a  net  is  a  peculiarly  expressive  phrase  in  Greek, 
where  the  verb  and  noun  are  cognate  forms,  the  essential  idea  being 
that  of  throicing  aJjout  or  round,  in  reference  either  to  the  nets  en- 
closing the  fish,  or  to  its  being  cast  in  ditlerent  directions.  They 
were  Jishermen,  not  only  so  employed  at  that  time,  but  habitually,  con- 
stantly, as  their  profession. 

IT.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Come  ye  after  me,  and 
I  will  make  you  to  become  fishers  of  men. 

Passing  over  the  extraordinary  draught  of  fishes  which  Luke  here 
relates,  but  saj-ing  nothing  inconsistent  with  it,  JMark  records  the  call 
of  these  two  brothers  as  a  necessary  link  in  the  chain  of  his  historical 
deduction.  Gome  after  me,  or  more  exactly,  JiitJier  I  deJiind  me.  not 
only  in  the  literal  and  local  sense,  but  in  the  moral  or  fi<rur?.tive  sense 
of  adherence  and  dependence.  The  last  clause  is  a  beautiful  allusion 
to  their  former  occupation  as  a  figure  of  the  one  which  they  were  now 
to  undertake.  The  comparison,  like  others,  is  not  to  be  p7*essed  too 
far,  the  main  points  of  resemblance  being  the  value  of  the  objects  to  be 
caught,  the  necessity  of  skill  as  well  as  strength  in  catching  them,  and 
the  implied  promise  of  abundance  and  success.  As  the  business  of 
their  lives  had  hitherto  been  only  to  provide  for  the  subsistence  of  the 
body,  by  securing  the  bodies  of  inferior  animals  for  food  ;  so  now  they 
were  to  seek  the  souls  of  men,  not  to  destroy  but  to  save  them,  in  the 
way  of  God's  appointment,  and  as  a  necessary  means  for  the  promo- 
tion of  his  glory. 

18.  And  straightway  they  forsook  tlioJr  nets,  and  fol- 
lowed him. 

The  effect  of  this  abrupt  call  is  described  as  inst'/ata'iPOus,  not  only 
because  thc}^  were  expecting  and  prepared  for  su  U  a,  summons,  but 
because  they  were  divinely  moved  to  answer  and   otcy  it.     Leaving 


M  ARK  1,  18.  19.  20.  17 

their  nets,  not  only  for  the  present  but  forever,  as  their  permanent  em- 
ployment and  the  means  of  their  subsistence.  At  the  same  time  the 
words  seem  to  suggest,  as  their  immediate  and  strict  sense,  that  the 
fishermen  thus  summoned  left  their  nets  lying  where  they  were,  with- 
out waiting  to  deposit  or  secure  them.  This  unhesitating  response  to 
the  divine  call,  without  regard  to  minor  consequences,  is  presented 
elsewhere  as  a  severe  but  equitable  test  of  true  devotion  to  the  Mas- 
ter's service  (Luke  9,  57-62.) 

19.  And  when  lie  had  gone  a  little  further  thence,  he 
saw  James  the  (son)  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his  brother, 
who  also  w^ere  in  the  ship  mending  their  nets. 

Another  pair  of  brothers  was  to  be  called  to  the  same  service  at 
the  same  time.  Advancing,  going  forward,  from  the  place  where 
Simon  and  Andrew  had  been  called,  and  now  no  doubt  attended  by 
them,  he  smc  James  tlie  {son)  of  Zebedee  and.  John  his  Irother,  one  of 
whom,  most  probably  the  latter,  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  been 
the  other  disciple  of  the  Baptist,  who  with  Andrew  followed  Jesus 
when  acknowledged  by  their  Master  as  the  Lamb  of  God  (John  1,  41.) 
Them  too  (or  also)  in  the  ship,  or  rather  boat,  mending  ('preparing  or 
finishing)  the  nets,  of  which  they  were  accustomed  to  make  use.  The 
word  translated  ship  means  any  thing  that  sails,  corresponding  more  ex- 
actly to  craft  or  vessel,  than  to  ship,  which  in  modern  usage  commonly 
implies  a  certain  size  if  not  a  certain  form  and  structure.  The  vessels 
here  meant  were  small  fishing  smacks,  propelled  both  by  sails  and 
oars,  and  drawn  up  on  the  shore  when  not  engaged  in  actual  service. 
The  translation  ship  was  introduced  by  Tyndale  ;  Wiclif  has  the  more 
exact  term,  boat. 

20.  And  straightway  he  called  them  :  and  they  left 
their  father  Zebedee  in  the  ship  with  the  hired  servants, 
and  went  after  him. 

Here  again  the  effect  was  an  immediate  one,  and  rendered  still  more 
striking  by  the  fact  that  they  left  not  only  their  nets  and  their  boat, 
but  their  father  who  was  in  it,  and  probably  employed  in  the  same 
manner.  With  the  hired  {men),  hirelings,  not  necessarily  domestics, 
servants,  but  more  probably  the  fishermen  in  their  employ.  This  cir- 
cumstance appears  to  have  been  added  for  the  two-fold  purpose  of  sug- 
gesting that  they  did  not  leave  their  father  without  help  or  company, 
but  no  doubt  just  as  able  to  continue  his  business  as  when  his  sons 
were  with  him  ;  and  also  that  the  men  thus  called  to  follow  Christ 
were  not  of  the  lowest  class,  or  driven  by  necessity'  to  change  their 
mode  of  life,  but  had  the  means,  or  were  the  sons  of  one  who  had  the 
means  of  employing  others  to  assist  them  in  their  business.  The 
idea  that  Zebedee  was  dependent  on  his  sons,  and  therefore  injured  by 


18  M  A  E  K  1,  20.  21. 

their  leavin^^  him,  is  not  expressed  nor  even  necessarily  implied,  but 
rather  that  he  was  the  master  of  the  boat  and  the  director  of  the  fish- 
ery, in  which  he  Avas  assisted  by  liis  own  sons  and  by  fishermen  hired 
for  the  purpose.  Still  more  extravagant  and  groundless  is  the  notion 
of  extreme  age  and  infirmit}-,  which  some  use  to  aggravate  the  charge 
of  undutiful  neulcct  alleacd  acainst  James  and  John.  Even  in  tlie 
supposed  case,  the  call  of  Christ  would  have  superseded  every  other 
claim  and  obligation  (compare  Matt.  8.  21.  22.  Luke  9,  01.  62) ;  but  no 
such  extreme  case  seems  to  have  existed,  and  we  have  neither  rijiht 
nor  reason  to  invent  it.  The  completeness  of  their  separation  from 
their  previous  connections  and  devotion  to  their  new  one  is  suggested 
by  Mark's  saying,  not  simply  that  tliey  foUoiced  liim^  as  Luke  and 
Matthew  do,  but  that  they  icent  off  {ov  away)  heliind  him. 

21.  And  they  went  into  Capernaum  ;  and  straightway 
on  the  sahbatli-day  he  entered  into  the  synagogue  and 
tanght. 

Having  now  described  the  ministry  of  Christ  in  Galilee,  and  stated 
his  first  measures  for  the  organization  of  an  auxiliary  body,  Mark  pro- 
ceeds to  show  b}'  what  credentials  his  legation  was  attested.  Its  au- 
thority did  not  rest  mereh^  on  his  own  assertion,  though  intrinsically 
all-sulficient,  but  was  proved  to  be  from  God,  not  by  evidence  exterior 
to  and  independent  of  itself,  but  by  its  own  essential  functions,  those 
of  teaching  and  working  miracles,  both  which  belonged  to  his  pro- 
phetic office,  having  both  been  exercised  by  former  prophets,  not  as 
distinct  and  independent  powers,  but  reciprocally  aiding  one  another 
and  combining  to  attest  their  own  divine  authority.  Instead  of  gen- 
eral description,  Mark  illustrates  our  Lord's  method  of  proceeding  by 
particular  examples,  no  doubt  drawn  from  the  first  period  of  his  min- 
istry in  Galilee,  though  not  the  very  first  occurrences  of  this  kind,  as 
we  learn  from  John's  account  of  earlier  instances  (John  2, 1-12.  23. 
4,  46-54).  They  (i.  e.  Jesus  and  the  followers  whom  he  had  already 
called)  enter  into  Capernaum^  the  Greek  verb  implying  that  they 
journeyed  to  it  from  a  distance.  This  was  a  town  on  the  west  side  of 
Genessaret,  not  named  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  only  once  in  the 
writings  of  Josephus.  It  has  long  since  perished,  and  its  very  site  is 
now  disputed,  although  probably  marked  by  the  present  village  of 
Khan-Min3'ch.  at  the  north  end  of  the  plain  or  district  of  Genessaret, 
near  a  spring  which  Josephus  calls  the  fountain  of  Capernaum.  After 
our  Lord's  rejection  at  Nazareth,  which  Luke  has  recorded  in  detail, 
he  made  Capernaum  the  centre  of  his  operations,  and  the  ordinary 
place  of  his  abode  when  not  engaged  upon  his  circuits.  (See  Luke  4, 
16-31.)  It  is  a  probable,  though  not  a  necessary  supposition,  that  the 
circumstances  here  related  took  place  on  his  first  removal  from  Xaza- 
reth,  and  are  therefore  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  at  Capernaum. 
Immediately.,  without  delay,  he  enters  upon  one  of  his  official  func- 
tions, that  of  teaching,  making  use  of  the  facilities  afforded  for  that 


MARK  1,  21.  22.  19 

purpose  by  the  Jewish  institutions  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  Synagogue. 
The  observance  of  the  seventh  day  as  a  sabbath  or  rehgious  rest,  pre- 
scribed at  tiie  creation  (Gen.  2,  3),  and  re-enacted  at  the  exodus  from 
Egypt  (Ex.  20,  8-11),  to  commemorate  the  rest  of  the  Creator  from 
his  six  da3-s'  work,  and  that  of  Israel  from  Egyptian  bondage,  was  ob- 
served with  more  and  more  punctilious  rigour  in  the  later  periods  of 
their  history,  particularly  in  the  Babylonian  exile,  when  the  cere- 
monial law  was  in  abeyance,  and  the  Jews  were  outwardly  distin- 
guished only  by  circumcision  and  the  Sabbath.  Upon  this  day,  from 
the  earliest  times,  it  had  probabl}''  been  customary  to  assemble  for  re- 
ligious worship  under  the  direction  of  the  hereditary  elders  of  the  tribe 
or  vicinage.  These  meetings  were  called  synagogues  in  Greek,  and 
were  no  doubt  continued  with  redoubled  zeal  during  the  captivit}^,  and 
perhaps  with  more  of  a  distinct  organization  than  was  needed  originally 
and  at  hon:ie.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  many  of  the  regulations 
commonly  described  as  belonging  to  the  ancient  synagogue,  are  of  later 
date,  and  caused  by  the  dispersion  of  the  people  throughout  various 
countries.  There  is  nothing  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  at 
least,  to  show  that  the  synagogues  in  the  time  of  Christ  were  any  thing 
more  than  the  ancient  gatherings  of  the  people  for  worship  under  their 
national  hereditary  elders,  who  in  that  capacity  were  elders  or  rulers 
of  tlie  synagogue  (see  below,  on  5,  22.)  By  a  natural  metonymy  the 
name  (like  churchy  school^  court,  in  English)  is  occasionally  transferred 
to  the  place  of  meeting,  but  without  disturbing  its  original  and  proper 
import.  Of  this  truly  national  and  sacred  usage,  that  of  meeting  ou 
the  Sabbath  for  religious  worship,  our  Lord  immediately  availed  him- 
self, as  furnishing  the  most  direct  and  easy  access  to  the  more  devout 
and  serious  portion  of  the  people.  The  service  of  the  synagogue 
appears  to  have  been  eminently  simple,  consisting  in  prayer  and  the 
reading  of  the  Scriptures,  with  stated  or  occasional  exhortation.  That 
our  Lord  was  permitted  to  perform  this  duty  without  any  seeming 
opposition  or  objection,  may  be  explained  either  from  the  liberty  of 
speech  allowed  on  such  occasions  by  the  ancient  usage,  or  from  his 
general  recognition,  even  by  his  adversaries,  as  a  gifted  teacher.  Jle 
taught,  being  here  in  the  imperfect  tense,  may  be  understood  to  signify 
his  general  habit,  or,  as  vs.  21-27  refer  to  a  particular  occasion,  it  may 
mean  that  he  was  teaching  (as  the  Rhemish  version  renders  it)  on  the 
day  in  question,  when  the  subsequent  occurrences  took  place. , 

22.  And  they  were  astonislied  at  liis  doctrine :  for  lie 
taught  them  as  one  that  liad  authority,  and  not  as  the 
scribes. 

A  highly  important  feature  in  the  history  of  Christ's  ministry  is 
the  impression  or  effect  of  his  teaching  on  the  multitudes  who  heard  it. 
This  is  here  described,  perhaps  in  reference  to  one  particular  occasion, 
but  in  terms  admitting  of  a  general  application,  and  substantial!}^  re- 
peated elsewhere  (see  below,  6, 2.  11, 18,  and  compare  JMatt.  13,  54.  22, 
33.  Acts  13,  12.)     The  grand  effect  was  that  of  wonder  or  astonish- 


20  -^MARK  1,  22.  23. 

ment,  they  icere  st?'vcJi\  literally  struck  ont,  driven  from  their  normal 
or  customar}''  state  of  mind  by  something  new  and  strange.  The  object 
or  occasion  of  this  wonder  was  his  doctrine,  not  his  learning,  as  Tyn- 
dale  and  Cranmer  have  it,  unless  they  use  that  term  in  its  old  sense 
(now  regarded  as  a  vulgarism)  of  teaching,  which  is  AViclif 's  version  ; 
nor  the  truth  taught,  which  is  now  the  common  use  of  doctrine ;  but 
as  the  Greek  word  usually  means  in  the  gospels,  either  the  act  or  mode 
of  teaching.  That  this  is  the  meaning  here,  we  learn  from  the  reason 
given  for  their  wonder.  This  is  stated  in  the  last  clause  negatively, /()r 
he  iras  (then  as  habitually)  teaching  iheni  not  as  the  scribes.  His  in- 
structions are  here  brought  into  direct  comparison  with  those  of  a  cer- 
tain well-known  class,  who  must  of  course  be  teachers.  This  is  a  suf- 
ficient refutation  of  the  error  that  the  scribes  were  either  clerks  to 
magistrates,  or  mere  transcribers  of  the  Scriptures.  As  the  successors 
of  Ezra,  the  first  scribe  of  whom  we  read  in  this  sense  (Ezra  7,  6).  they 
were  the  conservators  and  guardians  of  the  sacred  text  and  canon,  which 
implies  a  critical  acquaintance  with  them,  such  as  qualified  the  scribes 
above  all  others  to  be  expounders  of  the  Scripture  liicewise.  Although 
rather  a  profession  than  an  office,  they  exerted  a  commanding  influence 
on  public  opinion,  and  are  repeate(lly  referred  to  as  authoritative  teach- 
ers of  religion.  (See  below,  on  12,  35,  and  compare  Matt.  23,  2-4.  Luke 
11,  52.)  The  point  of  difference  is  indicated  in  the  positive  statement 
that  Jie  taright  (or  was  teacJiing)  them  rts(one)  having  authority.  This 
cannot  refer  to  a  dogmatical  authoritative  manner,  as  to  which  the 
scribes  most  probably  surpassed  all  others.  Nor  does  it  mean  i)Ower- 
fiilly,  as  explained  by  Luther.  The  only  sense  consistent  with  the 
usage  of  the  terms  and  with  the  context  is  that  he  taught  them,  not  as 
a  mere  expounder,  but  with  the  original  authority  belonging  to  the  au- 
thor of  the  law  expounded.  This  is  not  a  description  of  mere  outward 
manner,  but  of  that  self-evidencing  light  and  self-asserting  force,  which 
must  accompany  all  direct  divine  communications  to  the  minds  of  crea- 
tures. Even  those  who  were  most  accustomed  and  most  submissive  to 
the  teachings  of  the  scribes,  must  have  felt,  as  soon  as  Jesus  spoke, 
that  he  was  speaking  with  authority,  declaring  his  own  will,  and  ex- 
pounding his  own  law,  not  that  of  another.  The  distinction  therefore 
is  not  merely  between  traditional  and  textual  instruction,  but  between 
two  forms  or  methods  of  the  latter. 

23.  And  there  was  in  their  synagogue  a  man  with  an 
unclean  spirit ;  and  he  cried  out, 

But  this  was  not  the  only  proof  of  his  divine  legation  as  a  teacher. 
It  was  attested  also  by  the  exercise  of  superhuman  power.  The  mira- 
cles of  Christ  were  not  intended  merely  to  relieve  suffering,  but  to  open 
men's  minds  to  the  reception  of  the  truth,  and  to  authenticate  it  as  such. 
That  both  these  ends  might  be  promoted  by  the  same  means,  nearly  all 
his  miracles  were  miracles  of  mere}-,  and  a  large  proportion  miiacles  of 
healing.  From  among  the  earliest  Mark  chooses  two,  both  wrought  at 
Capernaum,  one  in  public  (vs.  23-28),  and  one  in  private  (vs.  29-31.) 


MARK  1,  23.  24.  21 

The  first  was  in  the  synagogue  or  stated  meeting  for  religious  worship, 
where  a  man  was  present  in  an  unclean  spirit  (as  Wiclif  literally  renders 
it,  while  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  paraphrase  it,  vexed  tcith),  i.  e.  in  intimate 
union  with  a  fallen  angel,  who  was  suifered  to  occupy  his  body  and  to 
influence  his  mind,  but  only  with  persuasive  not  coercive  power.  The 
frequency  of  such  demoniacal  possessions  in  the  time  of  Christ  is  to  be 
referred  to  an  express  divine  appointment,  intended  to  put  honour  on  the 
Saviour  as  the  victor  in  that  war  between  the  seed  of  the  woman  and 
the  seed  of  the  serpent,  which  reached  its  crisis  during  his  personal 
presence  upon  earth  (see  above,  vs.  12.  13.)  The  epithet  unclean  has 
reference  to  the  moral  character  and  state  of  these  intrusive  spirits. 
The  less  specific  but  essentially  synonymous  phrase,  evil  (i.  e.  wicked) 
sjjirits,  is  occasionally  used  by  Luke  (7.  21.  8,  2.)  The  loud  cry,  often 
mentioned  in  such  cases,  was  no  doubt  of  such  a  nature  as  to  indicate 
the  presence  of  a  foreign  agent,  speaking  either  through  or  without  the 
organs  of  the  man  possessed.  The  terms  used  here  and  elsewhere 
show  that  the  historian  looked  upon  these  evil  spirits  as  possessing  real 
personality,  and  not  as  mere  personified  diseases. 

24.  Saying,  Let  (ns)  alone;,  what  have  we  to  do  with 

thee,  thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  art  thou  come  to  destroy 

us  ?  I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One  of  God. 

Besides  the  attestation  of  Christ's  mission  which  was-  to  be  yielded 
by  the  dispossession  of  the  demon,  one  was  volunteered,  as  it  were,  by 
the  demon  itself,  in  the  form  of  a  protest  or  expostulation  with  our 
Lord  for  interrupting  his  possession  and  dominion.  Let  us  alone,  lite- 
rally, let,  permit,  suffer  (us  to  be  as  we  are),  without  disturbing  our 
actual  condition.  This  prayer,  or  rather  insolent  demand,  is  founded 
on  an  indirect  denial  of  his  right  to  interfere,  interrogatively  expressed. 
What  to  us  and  to  thee  f  i.  e.  what  is  there  common  to  us  or  connect- 
ing us  ?  Thy  domain  or  sphere  is  wholl}^  different  from  ours.  The 
plural  pronoun  may  have  reference  to  the  evil  spirits  as  a  class  or  body,  of 
which  this  one  was  a  member  and  a  representative.  The  sense  will 
then  be,  what  hast  thou  to  do,  what  right  hast  thou  to  interfere,  with 
that  mysterious  world  of  spirits  to  which  we  belong,  and  which,  though 
suffered  to  exert  a  physical  and  moral  influence  on  man,  are  of  a  spe- 
cies altogether  different,  and  therefore  not  amenable  to  thee,  a  man. 
Or  the  plural  may  have  reference  to  the  demon  and  the  man  possessed, 
as  having  for  the  time  one  interest  and  will.  The  sense  will  then  be, 
what  hast  thou  to  do  with  me  and  this  my  victim  ?  leave  us  to  our- 
selves. The  first  of  these  constructions  agrees  best  with  the  remainder 
of  the  sentence.  Art  thou  come  (or  thou  art  come)  to  destroy  tis,  not 
the  demon  and  the  man  together,  for  the  latter  was  to  be  set  free  by 
the  expulsion  of  the  former,  but  us,  the  seed  of  the  serpent  in  the  proper 
sense,  the  devil  and  his  angels,  the  infernal  corporation  of  which  this 
one  was  a  single  representative.  This  foreboding  of  destruction  was  not 
mere  imagination,  but  an  inference  from  what  the  demon  knew  of  our 
Lord's  person  and  oflBce.     Ilnow  thee,  not  as  an  acquaintance,  but  by 


22  MARK  1,  24.  25.  26.  27. 

fame  or  by  report.  Who  tliou  art.  thy  nature  and  the  end  for  which 
thou  hast  appeared.  The  holy  one  of  God  is  not  a  description  of  mere 
moral  quality,  except  as  something  incidental  or  implied,  but  of  official 
character.  The  one  whom  God  has  designated,  set  apart,  equipped, 
and  furnished  for  this  great  work  of  destruction.  The  divinity  of 
Christ,  or  his  identity  with  a  divine  person,  docs  not  seem  to  have  been 
known  to  the  spirit,  but  onl}^  that  the  man  whom  he  addressed  was 
one,  to  use  his  own  expressions,  whom  the  Father  had  sanctified  and 
sent  into  the  world  (John  10.  86),  i.  e.  chosen  and  commissioned  for  an 
extraordinary  service. 

25.  And  Jesus  rebuked  him,  saying,  Hold  thy  peace, 

and  come  out  of  him. 

Far  from  accepting  this  testimonj'  at  the  mouth  of  the  demoniac,  or 
rather  of  the  demon,  Christ  rebuked  his  impious  audacity,  forbade  him 
to  speak  further,  and  commanded  him  to  leave  his  victim.  Hold  thy 
peace,  in  Greek  a  passive  verb,  strictly  meaning,  l)e  thou  muzzled,  si- 
lenced (Wichf.  icax  dinnl)),  and  implying  a  coercive  or  restraining  power 
accompanj' ing  the  command.  Come  out  of  him,  abandon  that  mj'ste- 
rious  union  which  exists  between  you,  and  thus  leave  him  in  his  natu- 
ral condition.  This  last  clause  clearly  recognizes  two  distinct  personal- 
ities, neither  of  which  can  be  resolved  into  a  figure  any  more  than  the 
other. 

26.  And  when  the  unclean  spirit  had  torn  him,  and 

cried  with  a  loud  voice,  he  came  out  of  him. 

The  effect  of  the  command  is  here  described,  and  is  just  what  might 
have  been  expected  in  the  citse  of  a  real  demoniacal  possession.  The 
evil  spirit  yields,  but  with  reluctance,  and  not  without  a  parting  exhi- 
bition of  impotent  malignity.  Tearing  hhn^  a  strong  but  natural  ex- 
pression for  convulsions,  or  the  violent  contortion  and  spasmodic  agitation 
of  the  body.  Crying  with  a,  great  voice,  either  as  a  natural  expression 
of  pain  upon  the  part  of  the  demoniac,  or  of  rage  and  spite  in  the  de- 
parting demon.  If  all  this  can  be  resolved  into  a  strong  metaphorical 
description  of  an  epileptic  fit,  as  some  pretend,  then  any  other  state- 
ment of  the  history  may,  with  equal  plausibility,  be  explained  away. 

27.  And  they  were  all  amazed,  insomuch  that  they 

questioned  among  themselves,  saying.  What  thing  is  this? 

what  new  doctrine  (is)  this  ?  for  with  authority  command- 

eth  he  even  the  unclean  spirits,  and  they  do  obey  liim. 

The  effect  on  the  spectators  is  described  as  powerful  and  univer- 
sal, tJtey  were  all  amazed.  Nor  was  this  amazement  a  mere  stupid 
and  unreasoning  affection,  but  one  that  prompted  to  reflection  and  to 
rational  inquiry.  So  as  to  argue  {or  dispute)  among  (literally,  to  or 
loitJi)  themselves.     {Questioned  is  borrowed  from  the  Rhemish  version; 


MARK  1,  27.  28.  29.  23 

"VYiclif  has  thouglit^  Tynclale  demanded.)  What  is  tJiis?  what  is  the 
meaning:  of  this  new  and  strange  occurrence,  this  mysterious  dialoo-ue 
and  strife  between  a  man  and  an  evil  spirit,  and  tlie  still  more  wonder- 
ful submission  of  the  latter?  Their  next  question  shows  that  they 
did  not  regard  it  as  a  mere  chance-wonder,  but  connected  it  with  his 
pretensions  as  a  teacher.  What  (is)  this  neio  doctri7ie,  i.  e.  mode  of 
teaching,  with  reference  not  so  much  to  the  truth  taught  as  to  the  evi- 
dence by  which  it  was  attested.  AVhy  they  called  it  a  new  doctrine, 
they  explain  themselves,  to  wit,  because  he  claimed  and  exercised  au- 
thority, not  only  over  human  minds,  but  over  fallen  angels,  though  be- 
longing to  another  race  and  sphere  of  being.  Nor  was  this  a  mere  as- 
sertion Qr  pretension  upon  his  part,  but  attested,  verified,  b}'^  actual 
obedience  on  the  part  of  these  mysterious  and  unhallowed  visitants. 
The  reasoning  here  recorded  shows  the  effect  of  our  Lord's  miracles  in 
authenticating  his  divine  legation,  while  at  the  same  time  they  relieved 
a  vast  amount  of  human  suffering.  In  no  cases  were  these  two  ends 
more  effectually  answered  than  in  that  of  which  we  here  have  an  ex- 
ample, and  in  which  there  was  a  fearful  complication  of  bodily  and 
mental,  physical  and  moral  ailments,  and  of  temporal  and  spiritual, 
human  and  satanic  agencies. 

28.  And  immecliatelv  liis  fame  spread  abroad  tlirongh- 
oiit  all  the  region  ronnd  abont  Galilee. 

Besides  the  immediate  effect  thus  produced  on  those  who  wit- 
nessed this  miracle  and  others  like  it,  there  was  a  more  extensive 
mfluence  exerted  by  all  such  performances,  of  great  importance  to  the 
success  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  This  was  the  diffusion  of  his  fame, 
both  as  a  teacher  and  a  wonder-worker,  to  a  distance,  thus  promoting 
the  important  end  of  bringing  the  whole  population  to  the  knowledge 
of  his  claims  and  doctrines.  This  effect,  we  are  told,  in  the  present 
case,  was  instantaneous  and  extensive,  as  his  hearing^  i.  e.  what  was 
heard  of  him,  his  fame,  report,  or  reputation  (Rhemish  version,  hruit), 
went  out  (from  Capernaum,  where  the  miracle  was  wrought)  into  the 
ichole  surrounding  jjart  of  Galilee.^  or  into  the  ichole  region  around 
(Tyndale,  Ijordering  on  Galilee),  implying  a  still  further  extension  of 
his  fame,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Holy  Land,  into  the  Syrian  and 
Phoenician  territory,  where  we  know  that  it  did  penetrate.  (!^ee  Matt. 
4.  24.  15,  21.  Luke  G,  17.)  Thus  every  miracle,  besides  reheving  its  im- 
mediate subject,  and  disposing  him  and  all  who  saw  it  to  the  reception 
of  the  truth,  helped  to  make  our  Lord  more  generally  known,  and  to 
excite  a  spirit  of  inquiry  with  respect  to  him  and  his  religion. 

29.  And  fortliwitli,  when  thej  were  come  out  of  tlie 
synagogue,  they  entered  into  the  house  of  Simon  and  An- 
drew, with  James  and  John. 

To  this  public  miracle  Mark  adds  one  of  a  more  private  and  domestic 
kind,  but  in  this  case  also,  only  as  one  instance  out  of  many.    This  one 


'24  MARK  1,  29.  30.  31. 


was  wrought  in  the  bosom  of  a  ftimily  with  which  our  Lord  had  now 
contracted  intimate  relations,  that  of  Simon  Peter,  whom  we  thus  learn 
incidentally  to  have  been  married,  and  a  householder  at  Capernaum,  in 
conjunction  with  his  brother  Andrew.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  mention  of  Bethsaida  elsewhere  (John  1,  45),  as  "  the  city  of  Andrew 
and  Peter."  They  are  not  here  said  to  have  been  natives  of  Capernaum, 
nor  even  to  have  long  resided  there.  As  the  very  name  Betlisaida 
means  a  fishery  or  place  for  fishing,  and  was  common  to  more  villages 
than  one  upon  the  lake  (see  below,  on  6,  45),  it  is  probable  that  Peter 
and  his  brother  lived  there  while  engaged  in  that  emploj^ment.  and 
removed  to  Capernaum  when  Jesus  chose  it  as  the  centre  of  his  opera- 
tions. It  is  even  possible  that  Simon  opened  a  house  there  for  the  con- 
venience of  his  Lord  and  Master  in  the  intervals  of  his  itinerant  labours. 
Mark  adds  what  is  omitted  both  by  Luke  (4.  38)  and  Matthew  (8. 14), 
that  Jesus  was  attended  from  the  synagogue  to  Simon's  house  by  James 
and  John,  the  other  pair  of  brothers  whom  he  called  at  the  same  timt 
with  Simon  and  Andrew.     (See  above,  v.  19.) 

30.  But  Simon 's  wife's  mother  lay  sick  of  a  fever  ;  and 
anon  tliey  tell  him  of  her. 

Not  only  was  this  miracle  performed  in  Simon's  house,  but  on  a 
member  of  his  family,  his  wife's  mother  (or  as  the  older  English  ver- 
sions render  it,  his  mother-in-lcnc)^  who  seems  to  have  resided  with 
him.  She  teas  lying  doicn,  confined  to  bed,  with  fever,  in  Greek  the 
participle  of  a  verb  which  means  to  be  feverish,  or  to  have  a  fever. 
Luke's  more  particular  description  (4,  38)  is  by  some  regarded  as  pro- 
fessional (Col.  4,  10.)  Immediately^  as  soon  as  he  had  come  in  from 
the  synagogue,  they  tell  him  of  her.  speak  to  him  concerning  her,  which 
may  include  not  only  information  with  respect  to  her  disease,  but  a 
request  that  he  would  heal  her,  as  expressed  by  Luke,  they  ctsl-ed 
him  ahout  Jier,  i.  e.  whether  she  was  curable,  and  whether  he  would 
cure  her. 

31.  And  he  came  and  took  her  by  the  hand,  and  lifted 
her  up  ;  and  immediately  the  fever  left  her,  and  she  min- 
istered unto  them. 

As  we  never  read  of  Christ  refusing  finally  to  work  a  miracle  of 
healing,  such  a  refusal  was  least  of  all  to  be  expected  here,  where  one 
so  nearly  related  to  his  principal  disciple  was  the  suflerer.  Accordingly 
we  find  him  promptly  answering  the  prayer  of  those  around  her. 
Coming  to  her,  i.  e.  entering  her  chamber,  and  approaching  the  bed  on 
which  she  lay,  Jie  raised  her  from  her  prostrate  or  recumbent  posture. 
seizing  her  hand,  or  laying  hold  upon  her  by  the  hand.  Bodil}^  pres 
ence  and  immediate  contact,  although  nut  essential  to  the  working  of  a 
miracle,  and  therefore  frequently  dispensed  with  (see  below,  on  7,  29), 
were  in  most  cases  used  to  show  from  whom  the  healing  influence  pi-o- 
ceeded.  and  establish  a  perceptible  connection  between  him  and  the  person 


MARK   1,  31.  32.  33.  25 

healed.  The  effect  was  the  cessation  of  the  fever,  not  by  slow  degrees 
but  instantaneously.  The  completeness  of  the  restoration  was  evinced 
by  her  returning  to  her  ordinar}'-  household  duties,  so  that  she  who 
just  before  lay  helpless  in  their  piesence,  was  now  serving  them  or 
trailing  on  them,  no  doubt  with  particuhir  allusion  to  supplying  then; 
with  food,  which  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb  (see  above, 
on  v.  13.)  The  plural  pronouns  {they  and  them)  are  both  indefinite, 
with  a  little  difference  in  extent  of  meaning.  They  means  the  members 
of  the  household,  or  at  most  the  company,  excluding  both  the  Saviour 
and  the  woman.  Them  no  doubt  denotes  all  present,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  woman,  who  is  the  subject  of  the  clause.  This  use  of  the 
pronouns  is  common  in  all  languages,  and  is  especially  familiar  in  the 
dialect  of  common  hfe. 

32.  And  at  even,  when  the  sun  did  set,  they  brought 
unto  ]nm  all  that  were  diseased,  and  them  that  were  pos- 
sessed with  devils. 

One  of  the  commonest  and  grossest  errors  in  relation  to  the  miracles 
of  Christ  is,  that  they  were  few  in  number,  or  that  they  are  all  recorded 
in  detail.  To  guard  against  this  very  error,  after  recording  two  par- 
ticular miracles  of  healing  at  Capernaum,  Mark  adds  a  general  state- 
ment of  his  other  miraculous  performances  at  the  same  time  and  place, 
from  which  we  ma}^  obtain  a  vague  but  just  idea  of  their  aggregate 
amount.  In  the  evening  of  the  same  day  upon  which  he  healed  the 
demoniac  in  the  synagogue  and  cured  the  fever  in  the  house  of  Simon, 
all  the  sick  of  the  city  vvere  collected  there.  The  mention  of  the  even- 
ing and  of  stmset  does  not  imply  any  scruple  on  our  Lord's  part  as  to 
healing  on  the  Sabbath,  which  he  had  already  done  in  this  case,  and 
both  did  and  justified  in  other  cases.  (See  below,  on  3,  1-4.)  It  might 
more  probably  imply  such  scruples  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  who 
would  then  be  represented  as  deferring  their  request  for  healing  till  the 
close  of  the  Sabbath,  at  the  setting  of  the  sun.  Even  this,  however,  is 
unnecessary,  as  the  fact  in  question  is  sufficiently  explained  by  two 
more  obvious  considerations :  first,  that  the  cool  of  the  day  would  be 
better  for  the  sick  themselves,  and  secondly,  that  some  time  would  be 
requisite  to  spread  the  news  and  bring  the  sick  together.  He  first 
describes  them  in  the  general,  as  all  those  having  (themselves)  ill^  or 
being  in  an  evil  condition.  (Wiclif.  at  malaise  ;  Rhemish  version,  ill 
at  ease.)  This  may  either  denote  bodily  disease,  as  distinguished  from 
mental  and  spiritual  maladies,  or,  still  more  probabl}'',  disease  in  gen- 
eral, of  which  the  most  distressing  form  is  separately  specified.  T'os- 
sessed  icith  deHls,  literally  demonised,  or  under  the  control  of  demons, 
producing  by  their  personal  presence  either  bodil}^  disease  or  mental 
alienation,  or  the  two  together.     (See  above,  on  vs.  23-27.) 

33.  And  all  the  city  was  gathered  together  at  the 
door. 

2 


26  MARK  1,  33.  34.  35. 

The  efTect  of  such  extraordinary  cures,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
was  to  rouse  and  gather  the  entire  population  of  Capernaum,  a  state- 
ment which  need  scarcely  be  explained  as  hyperbolical,  but  may  be 
strictly  understood  as  meaning  that  every  individual  inhabitant,  who 
could  do  so,  attended  at  the  door  (Wiclif.  gate)  of  Simon's  house,  to 
obtain  healing  for  themselves  or  for  their  friends,  or  at  least  to  see  and 
hear  the  new  religious  teacher,  whose  instructions  were  attested  by 
such  clear  proofs  of  superhuman  power  and  authority. 

34.  And  lie  healed  many  that  were  sick  of  divers  dis- 
eases, and  cast  ont  many  devils  ;  and  suffered  not  the 
devils  to  speak,  because  they  knew  him. 

But  how  did  Christ  respond  to  these  importunate  demands  for 
supernatural  relief  ?  By  healing  many^  which  does  not  necessarily  or 
probably  imply  that  some  were  left  unhealed,  but  rather  that  he  healed 
them  all  (Matt.  8,  IG).  and  that  those  whom  he  thus  healed  were  many. 
The  cures  are  classified  as  the  diseases  were  in  v.  32 1  he  healed  many 
having  {themselves)  ill  icith  various  diseases^  and  exfelled  (or  cast  out) 
many  demons.  Here  again  the  first  phrase  may  be  generic,  and  include 
the  second,  as  the  demoniacal  possessions  were  undoubtedly  diseases, 
but  of  a  preternatural  description  ;  or  the  two  may  be  co-ordinate, 
describing  two  great  forms  of  suffering,  that  arising  from  mere  bodily 
disease,  and  that  occasioned  by  the  personal  agency  of  evil  spirits.  In 
relation  to  these  last,  and  in  allusion  to  the  fact  recorded  in  vs.  24.  25. 
we  are  informed  that  though  they  recognized  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah, 
and  were  ready  to  acknowledge  him  as  such,  he  would  not  suffer  them 
to  do  it ;  cither  because  he  did  not  need  their  testimony  and  would 
have  been  dishonoured  by  it,  or  because  a  premature  annunciation  of  his 
Messianic  claims  would  have  defeated  the  whole  purpose  of  his  mission. 

35.  And  in  the  morning,  rising  up  a  great  while  before 
day,  lie  went  out  and  departed  into  a  solitary  place,  and 
there  prayed. 

In  the  midst  of  this  unbounded  popularity,  arising  from  substantial 
benefits  bestowed  and  clear  proofs  of  divine  legation.  Clirist  himself  not 
only  avoids  all  undue  publicit}^,  but  spends  much  time  in  private  devo- 
tion. Very  early ^  while  it  was  still  nighty  is  not  at  variance  with  Luke's 
phrase,  it  hecoming  day  (ch.  4,  42).  since  both  are  popular  expressions 
for  a  point  of  time  not  certainly  defined,  to  wit,  the  dawn  or  break  of 
day,  when  light  and  darkness  are  in  conflict,  and  although  the  day  is 
breaking,  it  is  really  still  night.  (See  below,  on  IG,  2.)  At  this  early 
hour  we  see  him  rising  and  going  out,  not  only  from  the  house  but 
from  the  town,  into  a  desert  unfrequented  spot,  and  there  praying,  thus 
affording  the  most  convincing  proof  of  the  necessity  of  prater  to  our 
spiritual  life  by  using  it  himself,  as  a  mysterious  but  real  and  efficient 
means,  not  only  of  conversing  with  the  Father  and  the  Spirit,  but  of 
securing  their  co-operation. 


MARK  1,  36.  37.  38.  27 

36.  And  Simon,  and  tliey  that  were  with  him,  followed 

after  him. 

This  indifference  to  popular  applause,  and  this  desire  for  spiritual 
exercises,  were  alike  beyond  the  comprehension  of  his  friends,  even 
of  those  whom  he  had  lately  called  to  be  his  personal  attendants  and 
disciples.  Simon  Peter,  in  whose  house  he  had  no  doubt  been  lodged, 
no  sooner  missed  him  in  the  morning  than  he  set  forth  in  pursuit  of 
him,  accompanied  by  others,  who  are  not  here  further  designated  or 
described.  Those  idUJi  Jiim  may  perhaps  mean  those  belonging  to  his 
household,  those  residing  with  him,  but  more  probably,  those  with 
him  upon  this  occasion,  those  who  came  out  with  him  to  assist  him. 
Upon  either  supposition,  James  and  John  were  probably  included, 
either  as  inmates  of  his  house,  or  as  fellow  disciples,  and  possessing  the 
same  interest  in  the  safety  and  honour  of  their  common  master.  They 
pursued  him,  hunted  him,  in  Greek  a  strong  expression  used  by  Xeno- 
phon  to  signify  the  close  pursuit  of  an  enemy  in  war.  It  here  denotes 
an  eager  and  determined  following,  perhaps  with  some  implication  of 
displeasure  at  the  act  which  caused  it,  showing  a  false  view  both  of 
their  privilege  and  his  prerogative. 

37.  And  when  they  had  found  him,  they  said  nnto 
him,  All  (men)  seek  for  thee.  - 

Having  found  him,  after  some  search  and  uncertainty,  as  this  ex- 
pression seems  to  imply,  they  say  to  him  {that)  all  are  seeTcing  thee. 
This  seems  to  be  assigned  as  a  sufficient  reason  why  they  followed  him, 
and  why  he  must  return,  implying  that  his  movements  must  be  gov- 
erned by  the  will  of  the  great  multitude  who  waited  for  him,  or 
rather,  as  we  learn  from  Luke's  account  of  this  same  matter  (Luke  4, 
42),  who  had  followed  or  accompanied  his  friends,  and  now  endeavoured 
to  restrain  him  from  proceeding  further,  thereby  showing  their  own 
ignorance  of  the  end  for  which  he  came,  and  of  the  work  in  which  he 
was  officially  engaged. 

38.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Let  ns  go  into  the  next 
towns,  that  I  may  preach  there  also  :  for  therefore  came 
I  forth. 

Instead  of  reproving  them  directly  for  their  officious  interference, 
or  asserting  his  own  rights  and  independence  of  their  will,  he  simply 
indicates  the  nature  of  the  work  before  him,  by  proposing  an  itinerant 
visitation  of  the  nearest  towns,  literally,  village-cities,  which  may 
either  mean  small  cities,  or  large  villages,  or  towns  in  its  strict  genuine 
sense  as  comprehending  both  the  city  and  the  village.  Next,  literally, 
held  or  holding  an  idiomatic  Greek  expression  for  adjoining  or  adja- 
cent. Let  us  go,  literally,  let  us  lead,  i.  e.  lead  off,  lead  the  way,  set 
out.  perhaps  implying  that  the  work  proposed  was  a  new  one,  now  to 
be  begun,  although  the  form  here  used  (ciyca^ev)  is  common  in  the 


28  MARK  1,  38.  39.  40. 

gospels  to  denote  mere  locomotion  or  departure.  (See  below,  14,  42, 
and  compare  Matt.  26,  4G.  John  11,  IG.  14,  31.)  These  words  were 
of  course  addressed  to  his  disciples,  not  to  the  accompanying  mul- 
titude. That  I  may  there  too  (not  merely  in  Capernaum)  'preach  (pro- 
claim, announce)  the  good  news  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  it  is  more 
fully  expressed  by  Luke  (4,  43.)  For  to  this  (end),  or  for  this  (cause), 
I  have  come  forth,  not  from  the  house  of  Simon  at  this  time,  as  some 
explain  it,  but  from  the  Father,  as  it  is  explained  by  Luke  (hecanse 
unto  this  have  I heen  sent.)  The  attempt  to  set  the  two  accounts  at 
variance,  instead  of  letting  them  explain  each  other,  must  appear  ab- 
surd to  all  who  are  familiar  with  the  weighing  and  comparison  of  evi- 
dence in  courts  of  justice. 

39.  And  lie  preached  in  tlieir  synagognes  tlirongliout 

all  Galilee,  and  cast  out  devils. 

The  plan  thus  proposed  he  carried  into  execution.  He  not  only 
preached  on  this  occasion,  but  he  was  preaching  ;  this  was  his  employ- 
ment. In  (literally,  into,  i.  e.  going  for  the  purpose  into)  their  syna- 
gogues, the  plural  pronoun  having  reference  to  the  toicns  mentioned 
in  the  preceding  verse,  or  more  indefinitely  to  the  people,  to  whom 
and  among  whom  he  was  preaching.  Into  all  (or  the  ichole  of)  Galilee, 
the  same  construction  as  in  the  preceding  clause,  and  here  as  there 
implying  previous  motion,  going  into  every  part  of  Galilee  and  preach- 
ing there.  All  Galilee,  not  only  the  next  towns,  to  which  his  first 
proposal  had  respect,  and  in  which  it  was  originally  carried  out,  but 
through  all  parts  of  the  province  he  carried  his  divine  instructions  and 
the  miracles  by  which  they  were  attested. 

40.  And  there  came  a  leper  to  him,  beseeching  him, 
and  kneeling  down  to  him,  and  saying  unto  him.  If  thou 
wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean. 

After  this  general  description  of  Christ's  ministry  in  Galilee,  and 
of  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  begun,  i\lark  records  another 
miracle,  performed  during  his  first  circuit  or  ofiBcial  journey,  and  re- 
markable because  of  the   peculiar  nature  of  the  evil  which  occasion- 
ed it.     A  leper,  one  afflicted  with  the  leprosy,  a  painful  and  loath- 
some cutaneous  disorder,  which,  although  a  natural  disease,  appears 
to  have  prevailed  in  a  preternatural  degrecamong  the  ancient  Hebrews, 
so  that  heathen  writers  represent  it  as  a  national  affection,  and  the 
cause  of  their  expulsion  from  Egypt.     The  identity  of  this  disease  with 
any  now  known  has  been  much  disputed ;  but  the  latest  testimonies 
favour  the  belief  tliat  it  continues  to  prevail,  and  in  an  aggravated  form, 
defying  all  attempts  to  cure  it,  even  by  the  most  improved  and  scien- 
tific modern  methods.     But  even  if  the  same  disease,  we  have  every 
reason  to  believe  that  it  prevailed  of  old  far  more  extensively,  and  in  a 
more  terrific  shape  than  it  ever  does  at  present.     The  design  of  this 


J 


MARK   1,  40.  41.  •  29 


extraordinary  prevalence,  if  real,  was  to  furnish  a  symbol  of  the  loath- 
someness of  sin,  considered  as  a  spiritual  malady,  and  by  the  rites  con- 
nected with  its  treatment,  to  suggest  the  only  means  of  moral  renovation. 
The  rules  of  procedure  in  such  cases  form  a  prominent  part  of  the  Mo- 
saic law  (Lev.  xiii.  xiv.),  and  were  still  in  fall  force  at  the  time  of  Christ's 
appearance.  Besides  the  formal  periodical  inspection  of  the  patient 
by  the  priest,  and  the  purifying  ceremonies  incident  even  to  a  state  of 
convalescence,  the  leper  was  excluded  from  society,  required  to  dwell 
apart,  and  to  announce  his  presence  and  condition  by  his  dress,  his 
gestures,  and  his  words.  That  this  law  was  applied  without  respect 
of  persons,  is  apparent  from  the  case  of  King  Uzziah,  who  was  smitten 
with  the  leprosy  to  punish  his  invasion  of  the  priestly  office,  and 
though  one  of  the  most  able  and  successful  of  the  kings  of  Judah, 
spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  a  several  (or  separate)  house,  the 
government  being  administered  by  his  son,  as  Prince  Regent  (2  Kings 
15,  5.  2  Chr.  2G,  10-21.)  The  lepers,  therefore,  were  a  well-defined 
and  well-known  class  of  sufferers,  distinguished  from  all  others  by 
the  circumstances  which  have  just  been  stated,  and  holding  a  sort  of 
middle  place  between  demoniacal  possessions  and  mere  ordinary  ail- 
ments. There  was  no  doubt  much  curiosity  in  reference  to  the  course 
which  our  Saviour  would  pursue  with  respect  to  these  unfortunates, 
who  were  not  considered  as  entitled  even  to  approach  him.  This  may 
be  the  reason  that  ^Mark  relates  the  healing  of  a  leper  as  his  next  ex- 
ample of  the  Saviour's  miracles  (40-45.)  There  comes  to  him,  while 
thus  engaged  in  visiting  the  towns  of  Galilee.  Kneeling  to  him.  not 
as  an  act  of  worship,  but  as  a  mark  of  importunity,  a  natural  gesture 
of  entreaty.  This  implies  near  approach,  if  not  immediate  contact, 
in  direct  violation  of  the  Jewish  usage.  The  beautiful  expression  in 
the  last  clause  is  expressive  of  the  strongest  faith  in  Christ's  miracu- 
lous ])Ower,  and  only  a  reasonable  doubt  of  his  willingness  to  exercise 
it  upon  such  an  object.  To  us  it  seems  a  matter  of  course  that  he 
should  cleanse  the  lepers  as  well  as  heal  the  sick ;  but  it  was  in  fact  a 
very  doubtful  question  till  determined  in  the  case  before  us.  Wilt 
and  canst  are  not  mere  auxiliaries  but  distinct  and  independent  verbs, 
if  thou  art  icilling  thou  art  aMe.  To  cleanse  (or  purify)  me,  i.  e.  to 
free  me  from  the  leprosy,  considered  not  as  a  mere  disease,  but  as  a 
symbolical  and  actual  defilement. 

41.  And  Jesus,  moved  with  compassion,  pnt  forth  (his) 
hand,  and  touched  him,  and  saith  unto  him,  I  will ;  be 
thou  clean. 

Of  the  three  evangelists  by  whom  this  miracle  has  been  recorded, 
Mark  alone  describes  our  Saviour's  feelings  in  performing  it.  The 
heart,  though  properly  the  name  of  a  bodily  organ,  is  used  in  all  lan- 
guages, perhaps,  to  signify  the  seat  of  the  affections,  and  sometimes 
the  affections  themselves.  But  the  Greeks  extended  this  figurative 
usage  to  all  the  higher  or  thoracic  viscera,  the  liver,  lungs,  &c.,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  lower  or  abdominal  viscera,  the  former  being  also 


30  M  A'R  K  1,  41.  42.  43. 

reckoned  edible,  the  latter  not.  For  want  of  a  distinctive  term,  the  Eng- 
lish version  uses  the  word  hoicels,  even  where  the  Greek  noun  {aTrXdyxva) 
has  its  figurative  sense  of  feeling,  and  especially  compassion.  From 
this  sense  of  the  noun,  later  and  Hellenistic  usage  formed  a  verb 
(a-rrXayxvlCofJLcii)  unknown  to  the  Greek  classics,  and  denoting,  first  the 
yearning  of  the  bowels,  or  rather  the  commotion  of  the  upper  viscera, 
and  then  the  emotion  of  pity  or  compassion.  It  is  the  passive  parti- 
ciple of  this  verb  that  is  here  correctly  paraphrased,  moved  with  com- 
passion. Under  the  influence  of  human  sjmipathy,  as  well  as  of  divine 
condescension,  he  complies  with  the  request  of  the  poor  leper,  both 
by  deed  and  word.  The  deed,  that  of  stretching  out  the  hand  and 
touching  him,  had  no  magical  intrinsic  power,  being  frequently  dis- 
pensed Avith ;  but  it  visibly  connected  the  author  with  the  subject  of 
the  miracle,  and  at  the  same  time  symbolized  or  typified  the  healing 
virtue  which  it  did  not  of  itself  impart.  The  words  which  accompa- 
nied this  gesture  correspond  to  those  of  the  leper  himself,  but  with  a 
point  and  brevity  which  make  them  still  more  beautiful  and  striking. 

If  thou  \vilt, I  will.     Thou  canst  cleanse  me, Be 

cleansed.  The  version,  he  thou  clean^  though  perfectly  correct  in 
sense,  mars  the  antithesis  between  the  active  and  the  passive  voice  of 
one  and  the  same  verb  {KaSapia-cu^  KaOapiadrjTL.) 

42.  And  as  soon  as  he  had  spoken,  ininiediatelj  the 
leprosy  departed  from  him,  and  he  was  cleansed. 

The  effect,  as  usual,  was  instantaneous,  and  is  so  described  by  ^Mark's 
favourite  adverb,  immediately.  The  preceding  words  (etVo'i/ros-  avrov) 
are  expunged  as  spurious  by  the  later  critics,  and  are  only  an  ampli- 
fication of  the  adverb.  The  strict  sense  of  the  aorist  participle  is, 
having  spolcen  ;  but  usage  would  justifv  the  version  speaking^  i.  e.  while 
he  yet  spoke.  The  effect  itself  is  described  in  two  forms  ;  first  tlie  lep- 
rosy departed  (went  away)yro??i  him.  leaving  him  entirely  fiee  from  its 
defilement  and  its  pains  ;  and  thus,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  lie  xtas 
purified  (or  cleansed),  as  he  had  asked  and  Christ  had  promised,  both 
in  a  physical  and  moral  sense.  By  being  freed  from  the  literal,  cor- 
poreal foulness  of  this  loathsome  malady,  the  leper  became  ipso  facto 
free  from  the  social  religious  disabilities  which  the  ceremonial  law 
attached  to  it,  and  needed  onl}'^  to  be  recognized  as  thus  free  by  the 
competent  authority.     (See  below,  on  v.  44.) 

43.  And  he  straitly  charged  him,  and  forthwith 
sent  him  away. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  miracles  of  Christ  that  they  were  neither 
preceded  nor  followed  by  unnecessary  words  or  acts,  but  as  soon  as 
the  desired  change  was  wrought,  the  subject  was  dismissed  to  make 
way  for  another.  We  have  seen  Peter's  mother-in-law  instantly 
returning  to  her  household  duties  without  any  interval  of  convalescence. 
(Sec  above,  on  v.  ol.)    So  here,  the  leper  is  no  sooner  cleansed  than  he 


MARK  1.  43.  44.  31 

is  sent  away,  dismissed,  or  as  the  Greek  word  properly  denotes,  cast 
out.  but  used  to  express  not  a  forcible  expulsion  (see  above,  v.  12),  but 
a  prompt  and  peremptory  dismission,  the  reason  of  which  afterwards 
appears  (see  below,  on  v.  44.)  The  act  of  sending  him  away  was 
accompanied  in  this  case  by  an  earnest  charge  or  exhortation.  The 
Greek  word  (enJSpLfxrja-aixevos)  is  a  Hellenistic  form  denoting  strong 
emotion,  and  particularly  grief  or  indignation.  (See  below,  on  14,  5, 
and  compare  John  11,  33-38.)  Here  and  in  Matt.  9,  30,  it  can  only 
mean  a  threatening  in  case  of  disobedience,  charging  him  on  pain  of  his 
severe  displeasure  and  disapprobation. 

44:.  And  saitli  unto  liim,  See  tliou  say  nothing  to  any 
man  ;  but  go  thy  way,  shew  thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer 
for  thy  cleansing  those  things  which  Moses  commanded, 
for  a  testimony  unto  them. 

From  the  tone  or  spirit  of  the  charge  he  passes  to  its  subject-matter 
or  contents.  See,  i.  e.  see  to  it,  be  careful,  be  upon  thy  guard.  Say 
notliing  to  any  man,  literally,  to  no  one,  the  double  negative  enhancing 
the  negation  in  Greek,  instead  of  cancelling  it  as  in  Latin  and  English. 
Man^  supplied  in  such  cases  by  the  English  version  limits  the  sense  too 
much,  unless  explained  as  an  indefinite  pronoun,  like  the  same  form  in 
German.  The  charge  here  given  was  not  one  of  absolute  and  perma- 
nent concealment,  which  was  not  only  needless  but  impossible,  from  the 
sudden  and  complete  change  in  the  man's  appearance  and  the  subse- 
quent effect  upon  his  social  relations.  The  prohibition  was  a  relative 
and  temporary  one,  and  had  respect  to  the  more  positive  command  which 
follows.  Until  that  direction  was  complied  with,  he  was  to  say  noth- 
ing. This  connection  is  suggested  by  the  order  of  the  sentence,  "  see 
thou  tell  no  one  ....  but  go,"  &c.,  i.  e.  remain  silent  till  thou  hast 
gone.  This  was  no  doubt  intended  to  secure  his  prompt  performance 
of  a  duty  which  he  might  otherwise  have  postponed  or  omitted  alto- 
gether. This  was  the  duty  of  subjecting  himself  to  the  inspection  of  a 
priest,  and  obtaining  his  official  recognition  of  the  cure  which  had  been 
wrought  upon  him.  That  recognition  would  of  course  be  followed  by 
the  offerings  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law  for  such  occasions.  (Lev.  14, 
1-32.)  By  this  requisition  Christ  not  only  provided  for  the  full  authen- 
tication of  the  miracle,  but  as  it  were,  defined  his  own  relation  to  the 
ceremonial  law,  as  a  divine  institution,  and  as  being  still  in  force.  This 
was  important,  both  as  a  preventive  of  malicious  charges,  and  as  a  key 
to  the  design  of  his  whole  ministry  or  mission,  which  belonged,  at  least 
in  form,  to  the  old  and  not  the  new  economy,  and  was  only  preparatory 
to  the  outward  change  of  dispensations.  This  is  the  meaning  put  by 
some  upon  the  last  words  for  a  testimony  (Tyndale  testimoniaT)  to 
them,  i.  e.  as  a  proof  that  I  reverence  the  law  and  comply  with  its 
requirements.  More  probably,  however,  it  refers  to  the  fact  of  the 
man's  being  cleansed,  which  could  be  fully  ascertained  by  nothing  but 
official  scrutiny  and  attestation. 


32  MARK  1,  45. 

45.  But  lie  went  out,  and  began  to  pnhlisli  (it)  much, 
and  to  blaze  abroad  the  matter,  insorancli  that  Jesus  could 
no  more  openly  enter  into  the  city,  but  was  without  in 
desert  places  :  and  they  came  to  him  from  every  quarter. 

While  iNIatthew's  narrative  concludes  with  Christ's  command,  Mark 
goes  on  to  tell  how  it  was  obeyed,  or  rather  disobeyed  in  one  point, 
namely,  the  suppression  of  the  fact  until  attested  by  the  priest.  Instead 
of  attending  to  this  first,  as  he  had  been  directed,  going  out  (from  the 
house  or  from  the  presence  of  the  Saviour),  he  J>egan  (at  once,  and  as  his 
first  employment)  to  yrochibn  many  {things),  i.  e.  to  say  much  in  the 
way  of  heralding  his  cure,  and  to  report  (circulate,  or  publish)  tlie  icord, 
not  the  thing  or  matter,  a  meaning  now  rejected  by  the  best  philologists, 
but  the  story  or  report  of  it.  Some  understand  it  still  more  strictlj^,  of 
the  word  by  which  the  miracle  was  wrought  (Kadapla&ijTc)  be  cleansed  f 
The  singular  tianslation  blazed  abroad,  is  borrowed  from  the  Rhemish 
version.  Whether  the  cleansed  leper  went  to  the  priests  at  all  is  not 
recorded,  being  a  matter  of  small  historical  importance  in  comparison 
with  the  effect  of  his  disobedience  on  our  Lord's  own  movements,  for  the 
sake  of  which  it  is  inserted  in  the  narrative.  This  effect  was  to  prevent 
his  coming  into  toicn  (i.  e.  any  town,  not  the  toicn,  i.  e  Capernaum),  at 
least  publicly  and  openly.  lie  could  not,  i.  e.  in  a  moral  sense,  without 
defeating  his  own  purpose  by  exciting  tumult  in  the  towns  through 
which  he  passed,  and  where  the  premature  announcement  of  his  mir- 
acles had  predisposed  the  people  to  undue  excitement.  To  avoid  this 
risk  he  now  chose  for  his  stations  unfrequented  places,  such  as  John  had 
occupied,  but  not  for  the  same  reason.  This  change  of  place,  however, 
did  not  abate  his  popularity,  for  crowds  came  to  him  in  the  desert  from 
all  quarters.  It  may  here  be  observed,  that  although  the  prohibition 
to  divulge  the  miracle  appears  in  this  case  to  have  been  conditional  and 
for  a  time,  it  was  repeated  afterwards  more  absolutely  (see  below,  on  5, 
43.  7,  36),  not  in  conformity  to  any  fixed  rule,  but  for  the  general  pur- 
pose of  preventing  the  precipitate  occurrence  of  events  which  according 
to  Iiis  plan  were  to  be  gradually  brought  about.  Hence  we  find  him 
varying  his  practice  as  the  circumstances  of  the  cases  varied  with  the 
same  independent  and  original  authority  which  marked  his  public 
teaching.     (See  above,  on  v.  27.) 


•*• 


CHAPTEE  II. 

*  Thus  far  the  historian  has  been  tracing  the  progress  of  Christ's  minis- 
try, from  its  antecedents  and  preliminaries  to  a  height  of  popularity 
and  influence  requiring  the  enthusiasm  of  the  masses  to  be  checked 
rather  than  excited.     But  this  success,  though  general,  was  still  not 


MARK  2,  1.  33 

universal.  Upon  certain  classes  of  the  people  the  impression  made  was 
altogether  difierent.  To  trace  the  growth  of  this  unfriendly  feehng  till 
it  ripened  into  bitter  hatred  and  avowed  hostility,  is  one  great  object  of 
the  history  which  now  presents  this  dark  side  of  the  picture,  and  ex- 
hibits the  original  causes,  or  at  least  the  earliest  displays  of  disaffection, 
with  the  very  words  and  actions  which  occasioned  them.  The  form 
which  the  narrative  assumes  is  that  of  a  series  of  charges  against  Jesus, 
or  objections  to  the  course  which  he  pursued,  as  inconsistent  with  the 
law  of  Moses.  The  first  ground  of  objection  was  his  claiming  the  power 
to  forgive  sins,  while  performing  a  miracle  of  healing  on  a  paralj'tic  at 
Capernaum  (1-12.)  The  next  was  his  intercourse  with  publicans  and 
sinners,  connected  historically  with  the  call  of  a  publican  to  be  an  apos- 
tle (13—17.)  A  third  was  his  free  mode  of  living,  and  supposed  neglect 
of  all  ascetic  duties  (18-22.)  A  fourth  was  his  alleged  violation  of  the 
Sabbath,  of  which  one  case  is  here  recorded  (23-28),  and  another  in 
the  following  chapter  (1-G.)  The  natural  relation  of  these  topics  to 
what  goes  before,  their  mutual  connection  .and  their  common  bearing  on 
the  whole  course  of  the  history,  are  clear  proofs  of  its  unity,  coherence, 
and  methodical  structure. 

1.  And  again  lie  entered  into  Capernanm,  after  (some) 
days  ;  and  it  v/as  noised  that  he  was  in  the  honse. 

From  among  our  Saviour's  many  miracles  of  healing  (see  above,  on 
1,  34),  Mark  now  selects  another,  for  a  special  purpose,  tiiat  of  pointing 
out  the  first  display  of  hostile  feeling  on  the  part  of  certain  classes,  the 
occasion  of  which  was  afforded  by  the  miracle  in  question.  We  have 
two  other  narratives  of  this  transaction  (Matt.  9,  2-8.  Luke  5,  17—20), 
neither  of  which  is  so  minute  and  graphic  as  the  one  b.efore  us,  that  of 
Matthew  being  much  the  most  concise  and  meagre.  The  different  con- 
nections in  which  the  gospels  introduce  this  narrative  have  reference  to 
their  several  designs  in  giving  it.  That  of  Mark,  already  stated,  makes 
the  mere  chronology  of  slight  importance.  His  opening  words  show, 
however,  that  the  incident  took  place  after  Christ's  first  missionary 
circuit,  recorded  in  the  former  chapter  (1,  39.)  He  came  again  into 
Cai^ernaum^  as  his  head-quarters,  or  the  centre  of  his  operations  (see 
above,  on  1,  21),  to  which  he  constantly  returned  from  his  itinerant  la- 
bours throughout  Galilee.  After  some  days,  the  nearest  equivalent  in 
English  to  an  idiomatic  Greek  phrase,  strictly  meaning,  tlirough  days., 
i.  e.  after  more  than  one  day  had  elapsed.  JS^oised,  literally,  Jicard,  im- 
plying that  it  must  have  been  reported,  and  suggesting  the  deep  inter- 
est now  felt  in  all  his  movements  b}^  his  townsmen  and  neighbours. 
In  the  Jiouse,  another  idiomatic  phrase,  which  strictly  means  to  (or  in- 
to) house,  and  like  the  corresponding  German  form  (zu  Hause)  is 
equivalent  in  sense  to  our  at  home,  but  with  the  accessory  notion  of 
previous  arrival  or  return,  suggested  by  the  preposition  (ds.)  '  It  was 
heard  that  he  had  come  home  and  was  now  there.'  The  idea  of  his 
own  or  any  other  particular  house,  although  implied,  is  not  expressed 
in  the  original.     Tlie  two  oldest  English  versions  have  in  a  hou'se. 


34  MAR  K  2,  2.  3.  4. 

2.  And  straiglitwaj  many  were  gatlierecl  together,  in- 
somuch that  tliere  was  no  room  to  receive  (them),  no,  not 
so  much  as  about  the  door :  and  he  preached  the  word 
unto  them. 

The  public  curiosity,  so  far  from  being  weakened  by  his  absence, 
was  now  more  intense  than  ever,  so  that  the  house  was  filled  at  once 
to  overflowing.  Immediately^  Mark's  favourite  connective  (see  above, 
on  1, 10. 18.  20.  21.  29.  31.  42.  43),  but  not  on  that  account  unmeaning 
or  inaccurate.  Ilis  peculiarity  is  not  that  he  describes  things  as  imme- 
diate which  were  not  so,  but  that  he  observes  the  immediate  succession 
of  events,  where  others  do  not  mention  it.  So  as  no  longer  to  receive 
(or  hold  thcm\  not  even  the  (place)  at  the  door,  or,  so  tliat  not  even 
tJie  (parts)  next  the  door  could  hold  (them,  or  make  room  for  them.) 
The  Greek  verb  has  the  same  sense  as  in  John  2,  6.  21,  25.  Even  the 
porch  or  entry,  leading  from  the  street  to  the  interior  of  an  oriental 
house,  was  crowded.  Before  this  multitude  he  exercised,  as  usual,  the 
two  great  functions  of  his  ministry,  teaching  and  healing.  Preached, 
(literally,  spolie  or  talJted)  the  word,  i.  e.  what  he  had  to  say  of  him- 
self and  of  his  kingdom,  or,  as  Luke  expresses  it  (5, 17),  was  teaching, 

3.  And  they  come  unto  him,  bringing  one  sick  of  the 
palsy,  w^hich  was  borne  of  four. 

It  would  seem,  from  an  expression  used  by  Luke  (5,  17),  that  other 
miracles  of  healing  were  performed  at  this  time,  but  that  one  is  record- 
ed in  detail,  on  account  of  the  discourse  to  which  it  gave  occasion.  They 
came,  indefinitely,  there  came  (me?i)  to  him,  bringing  a  paralytic,  a 
word  now  in  common  use,  but  not  at  the  date  of  our  translation,  which 
employs  the  circumlocution,  siclc  of  tlie  'palsy,  an  abbreviation  or  corrup- 
tion of  ^;ar«Z^6/6\  Mark  omits  the  mention  of  the  bed  in  this  place, 
but  adds  the  circumstance  that  four  men  carried  him. 

4.  And  when  they  couhl  not  come  nigh  unto  him  for 
the  press,  they  uncovered  the  roof  where  he  was :  and 
when  they  had  broken  (it)  up,  they  let  down  the  bed 
wherein  the  sick  of  the  ])alsy  lay. 

Their  eagerness  to  reach  Christ,  and  their  faith  in  his  capacity  to 
heal,  were  shown  by  their  extraordinary  method  of  effecting  an  entrance. 
Not  l>eing  al)le  to  approach  him  for  (or  on  account  of)  the  croicd,  which 
filled  the  very  doorway,  as  alread}'  mentioned  (in  v.  2),  they  unroofed, 
the  roof  {\n  Greek  a  kindred  verb  and  noun)  where  he  was,  i.  e.  either 
in  the  open  court  around  which  an  eastern  house  is  always  built,  or  in 
the  upper  room,  which  is  commonly  tlie  lai-gest,  and  the  one  used  for 
numerous  assemblies.  (Compare  Acts  1,  13.  0,  39.  20,  8.)  On  the 
former  supposition,  some  explain  the  unroofing  to  be  simpl}'  the  remo- 
val of  the  rampart  or  bulwark,  which  the  law  of  INIoses,  and  the  usage 


MARK  2,  4.  5.  35 

of  the  east,  require  on  every  flat  roof  as  a  safeguard  against  accidents. 
(See  Deut.  22.  8.)  But  this  would  hardly  be  described  as  unroofing, 
and  is  still  more  inconsistent  with  the  phrase  employed  by  Luke  {tliToiigTi 
the  tiles.')  Digging  out^  i.  e.  removing  the  loose  tiles  or  plates  of  burnt 
clay  which  covered  the  surface  of  the  roof,  or  still  more  probably,  dig- 
ging through  the  earth  or  plaster  which  composed  the  roof  itself.  They 
let  dozen,  lower,  i.  e.  with  cords  or  ropes,  which,  although  not  expressed, 
is  necessarily  suggested  by  the  usage  of  the  Greek  verb  (see  Luke  5,  4. 
5.  Acts  9,  25.  27,  17.  30.  2  Cor.  11,  33.)  The  covcli  (or  pallet),  not  the 
common  word  for  l)ed,  here  used  by  Luke  (5.  18)  and  Matthew  (9,  2), 
but  one  of  Macedonian  origin,  found  only  in  the  later  Greek,  and  prob- 
abl}''  denoting  a  couch  easily  carried,  perhaps  a  camp-bed.  Even  the 
most  costly  oriental  beds  consist  of  cushions  and  light  coverings,  spread 
upon  the  floor  or  divan,  bedsteads  being  quite  unknown.  On  which 
the  paralytic  was  lying,  helpless,  and  therefore  passive,  though  no 
doubt  consenting  to  this  bold  and  energetic  movement  of  his  friends, 
who  thus  succeeded  in  depositing  him  in  the  midst  of  the  crowd  below, 
and  immediately  before  the  Saviour  (Luke  5, 19.) 

5.  When  Jesus  saw  their  faith,  he  said  iiiito  the  sick 
of  the  palsy,  Son,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee. 

Seeing,  both  from  their  external  acts  and  by  his  power  of  discerning 
spirits.  Their  faith,  that  of  his  companions,  who  would  not  have  gone 
so  far  in  their  endeavour  to  reach  Jesus  if  they  had  not  believed  in  his 
capacity  and  willingness  to  do  what  they  desired.  The  commendation 
of  their  faith  is  not  addressed  directly  to  themselves,  but  indirectly  to 
their  suffering  friend,  and  in  a  form  at  once  affecting  and  surprising. 
Son,  or  rather  child^  the  Greek  word  being  neuter,  and  in  usage  com- 
mon to  both  sexes,  even  when  the  reference  is  to  one,  as  here,  and  in 
Matt.  21,  28.  Luke  2,  48.  15.  31.  The  same  affectionate  address  is  used 
by  Christ  to  his  disciples  in  the  plural  number  (Matt.  10,  24.  John  13, 
33).  and  a  synonymous  form  elsewhere  (John  21,  5.)  It  is  here  intend- 
ed to  express,  not  only  kindness  and  compassion,  but  a  new  spiritual 
kindred  or  relation,  which  had  just  been  formed  between  the  speaker  and 
the  man  whom  he  addressed.  Beforglceri,  like  the  Greek  verb,  is  am- 
biguous, and  may  be  either  a  command  or  an  affirmation.  It  is  now 
held  by  the  highest  philological  authorities  that  the  original  word 
{d(f)eo)VTaL)  is  an  Attic,  or  more  probably  a  Doric  form  of  the  perfect 
passive,  signifying  something  that  is  done  already.  Thy  sins  have  (al- 
ready) heen  remitted,  tlie  verb  corresponding  to  the  noun  {remission]  in 
1,  4,  above.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  as  some  do,  that  this  man's 
palsy  was  in  some  peculiar  or  unusual  sense  the  fruit  of  sinful  indul- 
gence; much  less  that  our  Lord  conformed  his  language  to  the  common 
Jewish  notion,  that  all  suffering  was  directly  caused  by  some  specific 
sin,  a  notion  which  he  pointedly  condemns  in  John  9,  3.  Luke  13,  2-5. 
Bodily  and  spiritual  healing  was  more  frequently  coincident  than  we 
are  apt  to  think,  the  one  being  real)}'-  a  pledge  and  symbol  of  the  other. 
Saving  faith  and  healing  faith,  to  use  an  analogous  expression,  were 


36  MARK  2,  5.  6.  7. 

alike  the  gift  of  God,  and  often,  if  not  commonly,  bestowed  together,  as 
in  this  ease,  where  the  singularity  is  not  the  coincidence  of  healing  and 
forgiveness,  but  the  prominence  given  to  the  latter  by  the  Saviour,  who 
instead  of  saying,  'be  thou  whole'  (compare  1,  41),  or  'thy  disease  is 
healed,'  surprised  all  who  heard  him  by  the  declaration  that  his  sins 
were  pardoned.  This  paradoxical  expression  was  no  doubt  designed  to 
turn  attention  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  cure  or  miracle,  and  also  to 
assert  his  own  prerogative  of  pardon,  in  the  very  face  of  those  whom 
he  knew  to  be  his  enemies. 

6.  But  there  were  certain  of  the  scribes  sitting  there, 
and  reasoning  in  their  hearts, 

"We  here  see  for  whom  this  unexpected  declaration  was  intended, 
not  for  his  friends  and  disciples,  but  for  others  whom  he  knew  to  be 
present  as  spies  and  censors  of  his  conduct.  There  were  some  of  the 
scribes^  i.  e.  of  the  large  class  or  profession  mentioned  in  1,  22,  and  th^e 
explained.  These  expounders  of  the  law,  and  spiritual  leaders  of  the 
people,  had  already  been  invidiously  compared  with  Jesus  by  the  crowds 
who  heard  him,  and  were  therefore  predisposed  to  regard  him  as  a  ri- 
val. Those  who  assembled  now  on  his  return  to  Capernaum  were  not 
merely  residents  of  that  place,  but  collected,  as  Luke  strongly  phrases 
it  (5,  17),  from  every  village  of  Galilee  and  Judea,  as  well  as  from  Je- 
rusalem. However  hyperbolical  these  terms  may  be,  the  essential 
fact  is  still  that  these  unfriendly  scribes  came  from  various  quarters, 
thereby  showing  the  importance  which  began  to  be  attached  to  Christ's 
proceedings,  especially  by  those  who  were  at  once  the  jurists  and  the 
theologians,  the  lawj^ers  and  the  clergy,  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Sitting 
seems  to  imply  that  the}''  were  in  a  convenient  and  conspicuous  posi- 
tion, and  perhaps  that  they  had  come  betimes  in  order  to  secure  it  (see 
below,  on  12,  39.)  Reasoning^  or  as  the  Greek  word  primarily  means, 
reckoning,  calculating,  through  and  through,  a  term  implying  coolness 
and  deliberate  forethought,  not  a  sudden  violent  excitement.  It  mioht 
here  denote  discussion,  or  an  interchange  of  views  among  themselves 
(as  in  9,  33.  34,  below)  ;  but  this  idea  is  excluded  by  the  added  words, 
in  their  heartft^  so  that  what  is  here  described  is  not  reciprocal  com- 
munication, but  the  secret  working  of  their  several  minds,  unconscious 
of  the  eye  that  was  upon  them. 

7.  AVhy  doth  this  (man)  thus  speak  blasphemies  ?  who 
can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  ? 

The  reasoning  mentioned  in  the  sixth  verse  had  no  doubt  been  go- 
ing on  from  the  beginning  of  our  Lord's  discourse ;  but  the  evangelist 
confines  himself  to  the  effect  of  his  surprising  declaration  to  the  para- 
lytic, that  his  sins  were  pardoned,  litis  and  thus  are  commonly  sup- 
posed to  be  contemptuous,  at  least  the  former,  which  in  classic  Greek 
is  often  really  equivalent  to  this  fellow^  and  is  sometimes  so  translated 
in  our  Bible.      (Matt.  12,  24.  20,  01.  71.  Luke  22,  59.  23,  2.  Juhn  9, 


MARK  2,  7.  8.  37 


29.  Acts  18,  13.)  Tlms^  not  merely,  as  we  have  just  heard  him,  but 
so  foolishly  and  wickedly.  Blasi^Jiemy ,  in  classic  Greek,  is  any  evil 
speaking,  even  against  man,  such  as  slander  or  vituperation ;  but  in 
Hellenistic  usage,  it  denotes  specifically  evil-speaking  against  God,  or 
any  thing  said  impiously  either  of  or  to  him.  The  plural  (hlaspJiemies), 
which  Luke  has  also  (5,  21).  is  probably  intensive  (all  this  blasphemy), 
but  may  have  more  specific  reference  to  different  expressions  which 
our  Lord  had  used,  and  which  they  reckoned  blasphemous.  (See  be- 
low, on  3,  28,  and  compare  Matt.  15,  19.  1  Tim.  6,  4.  Rev.  13,  5.)  Only 
one,  however,  is  expressly  cited  or  referred  to,  namely,  that  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  fifth  verse.  Who  is  able  to  remit  sins  except  one  {that 
is)  God  ?  The  principle  involved  in  this  interrogation  is  a  sound  one, 
and  appears  to  have  been  a  sort  of  axiom  with  these  learned  Jewish 
scribes,  who  were  also  right  in  understanding  Christ  as  acting  by  his 
own  authority,  and  thereby  claiming  divine  honours  for  himself.  A 
mere  declaratory  absolution  they  could  utter  too,  and  no  doubt  often 
did  so,  but  the  very  manner  of  our  Lord  must  have  evinced  that  in 
forgiving,  as  in  teaching,  he  spoke  with  authority,  and  not  as  the 
scribes.     (See  above,  on  1,  22.) 

8.  And  immediately,  wlien  Jesus  perceived  in  his 
spirit  tliat  they  so  reasoned  within  themselves,  he  said 
unto  them,  Why  reason  ye  these  things  in  your  hearts  ? 

These  cavils  and  repinings,  though  not  audible,  were  visible  to  him 
who  had  occasioned  them.  Immediately^  here  too  (see  above,  on  v. 
2)  is  not  an  expletive,  but  indicates  the  instantaneous  detection  of  their 
thoughts  by  his  omniscience,  without  waiting  till  they  were  betrayed 
by  word  or  action.  Perceived^  literally,  knowing^  a  verb  meaning 
sometimes  to  recognize  or  know  again  (see  below,  6,  33.  54),  and  some- 
times to  ascertain  or  discover  (see  below,  5,  30),  but  more  commonly 
to  know  certainly  or  thoroughlj^  (see  Luke  1,  1),  which  is  probably  the 
meaning  here,  the  intensive  compound  having  reference  to  our  Lord's 
immediate  and  infallible  intuition  of  their  very  thoughts.  In  his  spirit^  - 
may  have  reference  either  to  his  divine  or  to  his  human  nature.  In 
the  former  case,  it  simply  means,  in  the  exercise  of  his  divine  cognition 
(1  Cor.  2,  11)  ;  in  the  latter,  through  that  spiritual  influence  and  illu- 
mination, with  which,  as  the  Messiah,  he  was  constantly  invested. 
(See  above,  on  1, 10. 12.)  To  our  apprehensions  the  two  meanings  are 
the  same,  the  distinction  being  one  beyond  the  reach  of  our  concep- 
tions. His  question  corresponds  in  form  to  theirs,  as  if  he  had  said, 
'  I  may  rather  ask  why  you  weigh  or  reckon  these  things  in  your 
hearts,'  not  merely  in  their  minds,  but  in  their  inner  parts,  or  secret- 
ly. The  fault  was  not  in  him,  but  in  themselves,  who  thus  presumed 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  him.  The  interrogation  has  the  same  force  in 
both  cases,  namely,  that  of  implied  censure.  'What  right  has  this 
man  to  pronounce  such  words  ?  '  '  AYhat  right  have  you  to  entertain 
such  thoughts  ? ' 


D 


8  MARK  2,  9.  10. 


9.  Whether  is  it  easier  to  say  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy, 
(Thy)  sins  be  forgiven  thee ;  or  to  say,  Arise,  and  take  up 
thy  bed,  and  walk  ? 

This  is  one  of  the  most  striking  instances  on  record  of  our  Lord's 
consummate  wisdom  in  the  use  of  what  appears  to  be  a  strange  and 
paradoxical  method  of  reasoning  or  instruction.  As  instead  of  pro- 
nouncing the  man  healed  he  unexpectedly  pronounced  him  pardoned, 
'.so,  instead  of  meeting  their  objections  by  a  formal  affirmation  of  his 
own  prerogative,  he  does  so  bj'-  a  subtle  but  convincing  argument,  dis- 
closing at  the  same  time  why  he  had  so  spoken.  They  denied  his 
power  to  forgive  sins,  and  could  not  be  convinced  of  it  by  any  sensible 
demonstration.  But  they  might  equally  dispute  his  power  to  heal, 
unless  attested  by  a  visible  effect.  If  then  his  commanding  the  para- 
lytic to  arise  and  walk  should  be  followed  by  his  doing  so,  what  pre- 
text could  they  have  for  doubting  his  assertion  that  the  same  man's 
sins  were  pardoned  ?  Which  (in  old  English  whether)  is  easier  ?  You 
may  think  it  easy  enough  to  pronounce  his  sins  forgiven,  whether  they 
be  so  or  not ;  but  it  is  equally  easy  to  pronounce  him  healed,  or  to  de- 
mand of  him  the  actions  of  a  sound  man,  and  if  this  should  prove  ef- 
fectual, you  must  acknowledge  that  the  other  is  so  too,  although  for- 
giveness cannot  be  made  palpable  to  sense  like  the  cure  of  a  paralysis. 

10.  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath 

power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  (he  saith  to  the  sick  of  the 

palsy,) 

'  That  you  may  know  by  what  authority  I  tell  this  man  that  his 
sins  have  been  forgiven,  I  will  show  you  what  authority  I  have  over 
his  disease,  that  the  possession  of  the  one  may  demonstrate  the  exist- 
ence of  the  other,  for  both  belong  to  me  as  the  Messiah.'  Son  of  man 
cannot  simply  mean  a  man^  or  a  mere  man,  for  this  would  be  untrue 
in  fact,  since  the  powers  in  question  do  not  belong  to  men  as  such ; 
nor  could  any  reason  be  assigned  for  this  circuitous  expression  of  so 
siniiile  an  idea.  The  sense  oi  man  hi/  way  of  eminence^  the  model  man, 
the  type  and  representative  of  human  nature  in  its  unfallen  or  restored 
condition,  is  by  no  means  obvious  or  according  to  the  analogy  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  at  most  an  incidental  secondary  notion.  The  true  sense  is 
determined  by  Dan.  7, 13,  where  the  phrase  is  confessedly  applied  to 
the  Messiah,  as  a  partaker  of  our  nature,  a  description  which  itself 
implies  a  higher  nature,  or  in  other  words,  that  he  is  called  the 
Son  of  Man  because  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  This  official  applica- 
tion of  the  term  accounts  for  the  remarkable  and  interesting  fact, 
that  it  is  never  used  of  any  other  person  in  the  gospels,  nor  of  Christ 
by  any  but  himself.  Even  Acts  7,  50  is  scarcely  an  exception,  since 
the  words  of  Stephen  are  a  dying  reminiscence  of  the  words  of  Jesus, 
and  equivalent  to  saying,  '  I  behold  him  who  was  wont  to  call  himself 
the  Son  of  iNIan.'  This  exclusive  use  of  the  expression  b}'"  our  Lord 
may  be  accounted  for  by  tiie  consideration  that  it  is  not  in  itself  a  title 


M  A  R  K  2,  11.  12.  13.  39 


of  honour,  but  of  humiliation,  .ind  could  not  therefore  be  employed 
without  irreverence  by  any  but  himself,  while  he  was  upon  earth,  or  in 
a  state  of  voluntary  humiliation. 

11.  I  say  unto  thee.  Arise,  and  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go 

thy  way  into  thine  house. 

Having;  stated  his  argument,  he  now  applies  it,  by  exhibiting  the 
very  proof  of  his  authority  to  pardon  sin  which  he  had  shown  to  be 
conclusive.  To  forgive  sin  and  to  heal  disease  are  superhuman  powers, 
to  claim  which  is  equally  easy,  and  to  exercise  them  equally  difficult. 
If  I  pronounce  this  man  forgiven,  you  may  deny  it,  but  you  cannot 
bring  my  declaration  to  the  test  of  observation,  since  forgiveness  is  a 
change  not  cognizable  by  the  senses.  But  if  I  assert  the  other  power, 
you  can  instantly  detect  the  falsehood  of  ray  claim,  by  showing  that 
the  paralysis  continues.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  disappears  at  my  com- 
mand, the  proof  thus  furnished  of  the  truth  of  one  claim  may  convince 
you  that  the  other  is  no  less  well  founded.  Thus  far  he  had  addressed 
the  scribes;  then  turning  to  the  palsied  man,  To  thee  I say^  Arise,  talx 
up  thy  couch  and  go  away  into  thy  house. 

12.  And  immediately  he  arose,  took  up  the  bed,  and 

went  fortl\  before  them  all ;  insomuch  that  they  were  all 

amazed,  and  glorified  God,  saying,  We  never  saw  it  on 

this  fashion. 

Familiar  as  we  are  with  this  astounding  scene,  it  is  not  eas}^  to 
imagine  the  solicitous  suspense  with  which  both  the  enemies  and 
friends  of  Jesus  must  have  awaited  the  result.  Had  the  paralytic 
failed  to  obey  the  summons,  the  pretensions  of  the  new  religious 
teacher  were  refuted  by  the  test  of  his  own  choosing.  But  he  rose 
(or  more  exactly,  teas  aroused  or  raised  up),  not  by  slow  degrees,  but 
immediately  (see  v.  8),  without  delay,  and  lifting  the  pallet,  upon 
which  he  had  been  Iving,  he  icent  out  of  the  house  and  from  amidst 
the  crowd  through  which  he  had  a  little  before  been  so  strangely  in- 
troduced, and  that  not  secretly  but  openly,  hefore  all,  as  if  challenging 
inspection.  The  result,  as  might  have  been  expected,  was  that  they 
were  all  amazed,  or  in  an  ecstasy,  i.  e.  an  abnormal  or  extraordinary 
state  of  mind  in  English  commonly  applied  to  extreme  joy,  in  Greek 
to  extreme  wonder.  (See  below,  on  3, 21.  5, 42.  6, 51.)  But  the 
wonder  was  not  irreligious,  for  it  prompted  them  to  glorify  God^  i.  e. 
to  praise  him  as  the  God  of  glor}',  whose  presence  had  been  manifested 
in  a  way,  of  which  they  had  experienced  no  previous  example. 

13.  And  he  went  forth  again  by  the  sea-side  ;  and  all 
the  multitude  resorted  unto  liim,  and  he  taught  them. 

The  supposed  extravagance  of  Christ's  pretensions  was  aggi-avated, 
in  the  eyes  of  his  accusers,  by  a  seeming  inconsistenc}''  of  his  behaviour 


40  MARK  2,  13.  14. 

with  respect  to  friendships  and  associations.  While  he  claimed  an 
authority  above  that  of  any  prophet,  he  consorted  with  the  most  no- 
torious violators  of  the  law,  who  were  excluded  by  all  strict  Jews  from 
their  social  and  ecclesiastical  communion.  He  did  so  even  with  the 
publicans,  whose  very  name  was  a  proverbial  expression  for  the  want 
of  character  and  standing  in  society.  This  excommunication  of  a 
whole  class  or  profession  arose  from  the  singular  political  condition  of 
the  Jews  at  this  time.  The  Romans,  to  whom  they  had  been  virtually 
subject  since  the  occupation  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey,  and  particularly 
since  the  coronation  of  Ilerod  as  king  of  the  Jews  by  order  of  the 
senate,  with  their  usual  wise  policy,  suffered  them  in  most  things  to 
govern  themselves.  The  two'  points  in  which  their  domination  was 
most  sensible  were  the  military  occupation  of  the  country  and  the  op- 
pressive system  of  taxation.  This  branch  of  the  imperial  revenue  was 
farmed  out  to  certain  Roman  knights,  and  by  them  to  several  grada- 
tions of  subordinate  collectors,  each  of  whom  was  required  to  pay  a 
stated  sum  to  his  superior,  but  with  the  privilege  of  raising  as  much 
more  as  he  could  for  his  own  benefit.  This  financial  system,  which 
still  exists  in  some  oriental  countries,  must  from  its  very  nature  be 
oppressive,  by  offering  a  premium  for  extortion  and  rapacity.  To  this 
was  added  in  the  case  before  us  the  additional  reproach  of  being  in- 
struments and  tools,  not  merely  of  a  foreign  despotism,  but  of  a 
gentile  or  heathen  power.  The  odium  thus  attached  to  the  office  of  a 
publican,  or  Roman  tax-gatherer,  prevented  any  Jews  from  holding 
it  except  those  of  the  most  equivocal  and  reckless  character,  who,  being 
thus  excluded,  by  their  very  occupation,  from  respectable  societ}',  were 
naturally  thrown  into  that  of  wicked  and  disreputable  men.  Thus  a 
business,  not  unlawful  in  itself,  and  only  made  oppressive  by  the  cu- 
pidity of  those  engaged  in  it,  came  by  degrees  to  be  regarded  by  devout 
Jews  as  intrinsically  evil,  and  gave  rise  to  that  familiar  but  without 
reference  to  these  facts  unintelligible  combination,  "  pulilicans  and  sin- 
ners." There  was  no  slight  analogy  between  this  moral  degradation 
and  the  physical  debasement  of  the  leper ;  and  the  same  curiosity  may  have 
been  felt  as  to  the  way  in  which  our  Lord  would  treat  it.  Mark  accord- 
ingl}^  exhibits,  as  a  second  ground  of  opposition  to  his  ministiy,  the 
fact  that  he  not  only  companied  with  publicans,  but  caused  that  hated  and 
despised  profession  to  be  represented  in  the  college  of  apostles  (13-17.) 
As  the  first  fbur  of  his  personal  attendants  were  fishermen,  so  the 
fifth,  whose  vocation  is  recorded,  was  selected  from  among  the  publi- 
cans, and  called  from  the  actual  discharge  of  his  official  functions.  The 
three  evangelists,  by  whom  tiiis  interesting  incident  has  been  preserved, 
agree  in  making  it  directly  follow  the  miraculous  cure  of  the  paralytic. 
Mark  adds  particularly  that  it  took  place  on  his  going  out  again  (i.  e. 
probably  from  Capernaum),  with  reference  to  his  going  in  again,  at  the 
beginning  of  this  chapter,  and  while  he  was  engaged  in  the  instruction 
of  the  crowd  which  still  attended  him. 

li.  And  as  he  passed  by,  lie  saw  Levi  the  (son)  of  Al- 


MARK  2,  14.  41 

pliens,  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  and  said  unto  liim, 
Follow  me.     And  lie  arose,  and  followed  liim. 

Passing  hy  or  aIo?ig,  from  the  city  to  the  lake,  or  on  the  shore  of 
the  latter,  he  saw  a  person  acting  as  a  publican.  Beceij^t  of  custom, 
or,  as  most  interpreters  explain  the  term,  the  place  of  such  receipt,  not 
necessarily  a  house,  perhaps  a  temporary  office  or  a  mere  shed,  such 
as  AViclif  calls  a  tolboth  (toll-hootJi),  a  name  transferred  in  Scotland  to 
the  common  gaol.  At  this  place,  perhaps  upon  the  waterside,  he  saw 
a  person  sitting  and  engaged  in  his  official  duties,  whom  he  called  to 
follow  him,  a  call  which  he  instantly  obeyed,  abandoning  his  former 
business  (Luke  5,  28.)  It  is  not  affirmed,  or  even  necessarily  implied, 
that  this  was  his  first  knowledge  of  the  Saviour.  The  analogy  of  the 
calls  before  described  (1,  16-20)  makes  it  not  improbable  that  this 
man.  like  his  predecessors,  had  already  heard  him,  and  perhaps  received 
an  intimation  that  his  services  would  be  required.  It  can  scarcely  be 
fortuitous  in  all  these  cases  that  the  persons  called,  though  previously 
acquainted  with  the  Saviour,  had  returned  to  or  continued  in  their 
former  occupation,  and  were  finally  summoned  to  attend  their  Master 
while  engaged  in  the  performance  of  its  duties.  The  person  here 
called  Luke  names  Levi,  Mark  more  fully,  Levi,  son  of  Ali^heus.  In 
the  several  lists  of  the  apostles,  one  is  expressly  so  described,  namely, 
James  the  Less,  and  one  b}''  an  almost  necessary  implication,  namely, 
Jude  or  Judas,  not  Iscariot  (see  below,  on  3,  18,  and  compare  Matt. 
10,3.  Luke  6,5.  16.  Acts  1, 13.)  In  none  of  these  four  catalogues  is 
the  name  of  Levi  found,  but  in  one  of  them  (Matt.  10,  3),  a  publican 
is  mentioned  by  the  name  of  Mattheic,  the  very  name  which  an 
old  and  uniform  tradition  has  connected  with  that  gospel  as  its  author. 
The  combination  of  these  statements,  which  some  German  writers  in 
their  ignorance  of  practical  and  public  jurisprudence,  represent  as  con- 
tradictory, no  judge  or  jury  in  America  or  England  would  hesitate  or 
scruple  to  regard  as  proving  that  the  Matthew  of  one  gospel  and  the 
Levi  of  the  other  two  are  one  and  the  same  person.  The  same  diver- 
sity exists  in  relation  to  the  hypothesis  or  theory,  by  which  the  differ- 
ence of  name  may  be  accounted  for.  While  one  class  treats  it  as  a 
mere  harmonical  device  without  intrinsic  probability,  the  other  thinks 
it  altogether  natural  and  in  accordance  with  analogy,  that  this  man, 
like  so  many  persons  in  the  sacred  histor}',  Paul,  Peter,  Mark,  &c.,  had 
a  double  name,  one  of  which  superseded  the  other  after  his  conversion. 
In  this  case  it  was  natural  that  Matthew  himself  should  use  the  name 
by  which  he  had  so  long  been  known  as  an  apostle,  yet  without  con- 
cealing his  original  employment,  and  that  Mark  and  Luke  should  use 
the  name  by  which  he  had  been  known  before,  when  they  relate  his 
conversion,  but  in  enumerating  the  apostles  should  exchange  it  for  his 
apostolic  title.  This  hypothesis  is  certainly  more  probable  than  that 
of  a  mistake  on  either  side,  or  that  of  a  confusion  between  two  con- 
versions, those  of  Levi  and  Matthew,  both  of  whom  were  publicans, 
and  one  of  whom  was  an  apostle,  but  confounded  by  tradition  with  the 
other ! 


42  M  A  R  K  2,  15.  16. 

15.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  as  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in 
his  house,  many  publicans  and  sinners  sat  also  together 
with  Jesus  and  his  disciples  ;  for  there  were  many,  and 
they  followed  him. 

Sat  at  meat,  literally,  lay  doicn  or  reclined,  a  luxurious  posture 
introduced  among  the  later  Greeks  and  Romans  from  the  east.  Among 
the  ancient  Greeks  as  well  as  Hebrews  sitting  was  the  universal  posture, 
as  it  still  continued  to  be  in  the  case  of  women  and  children,  while  the 
men,  by  whom  alone  convivial  entertainments  were  attended,  leaned  on 
their  elbows  stretched  on  beds  or  couches.  This  was  also  the  fashion 
of  the  Jews,  when  our  Saviour  was  among  them,  and  the  use  of  the 
words  sat,  sat  down,  sat  at  meat,  in  all  such  cases,  is  a  mere  accommo- 
dation to  our  modern  usage,  the  very  same  verbs  being  rendered  lay 
or  lying  when  the  reference  is  to  sickness  (see  above,  on  v.  4,  and  on  1,  30, 
and  below,  on  5,  40),  and  in  one  instance  leaning,  where  the  true  sense  is 
the  common  one  of  lying  or  reclining  (John  13. 23.)  In  his  house  might  be 
either  that  of  Jesus  or  of  Matthew,  whose  own  expression  is  still  more  inde- 
finite ( /?i  the  housed ;  but  the  ambiguity  is  solved  by  Luke  (5, 29),  who  tells 
us  that  the  publican  apostle  made  a  great  reception  {hoxnv)  for  him  in 
his  house,  a  circumstance  modestly  omitted  in  his  own  account  of  these 
transactions.  AVe  have  then  a  double  reason  for  the  fact  that  many  pub- 
licans and  sinners  sat  (reclined)  at  meat  with  Christ  and  his  disciples ; 
first,  the  one  expressed  by  Mark,  that  this  unhappy  class  was  very  nu- 
merous, and  yery  generally  followed  Christ,  to  hear  his  doctrine  and 
experience  his  kindness  ;  and  then,  the  one  implied  by  Luke,  that  he 
who  gave  this  entertainment  was  himself  a  publican,  and  therefore  hkely 
to  invite  or  to  admit  his  own  associates  in  ofiBce  and  in  disrepute. 

16.  And  when  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  saw  him  eat 
with  publicans  and  sinners,  they  said  unto  his  disciples, 
IIow  is  it  that  he  eateth  and  drinketh  with  publicans  and 
sinners  ? 

The  unavoidable  publicity  of  almost  all  our  Saviour's  movements, 
and  the  agitated  state  of  public  feeling  with  respect  to  him,  would 
necessaril}'-  prevent  a  private  and  select  assemblage  even  in  a  private 
house.  It  is  only  by  neglecting  this  peculiar  state  of  things  that  any 
difficulty  can  be  felt  as  to  the  presence  of  censorious  enemies  at  Mat- 
thew's table  or  within  his  hospitable  doors,  if  not  as  guests,  as  spec- 
tators or  as  spies.  These  unwelcome  visitors  are  designated  by  the 
same  name  as  before  (v.  G),  that  of  Scrihes,  but  also  by  another,  that 
of  Pharisees,  here  applied  to  the  same  persons,  but  describing  them  in 
a  different  manner.  The  word  itself  means  separatists,  and  is  com- 
monly explained  as  a  de.scrii)tion  of  their  austere  and  ascetic  separation 
from  the  mass,  as  claiming  a  superior  sanctity  and  purity  of  morals. 
It  is  far  more  probable,  however,  that  the  name  has  lelerence  to 
national,  not  to  personal  seclusion,  and  describes  the  party  which  con- 
tended for  the  separation  of  the  chosen  people  as  its  highest  honour. 


MARK  2,  16.  17.  43 

and  insisted  upon  every  point  of  difference  between  them  and  the  Gen- 
tiles, while  the  rival  party  of  the  Sadducees  inclined  to  a  more  liberal 
assimilation  to  the  customs  of  the  Gentiles.  The  word  sect^  commonly 
applied  to  these  two  bodies,  conveys  the  false  idea  of  a  separate  organ- 
ization, creed,  and  worship,  whereas  they  were  only  two  divisions  of 
the  same  church  and  body  politic,  and  might  be  more  correctly  called 
schools  or  parties.  The  Pharisees  appear  to  have  included  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  or  at  least  to  have  controlled  them,  not  so  much 
by  laying  claim  to  a  higher  moral  and  religious  character,  as  by  their 
patriotic  zeal  for  national  distinctions.  This,  which  was  at  first  a 
laudable  and  proper  spirit,  had  become  punctilious  in  its  love  of  forms, 
preferring  what  was  merely  ceremonial,  or  of  minor  moment,  to  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law,  and  often  cloaking  great  corruption  under 
appearances  of  virtue  and  devotion.  Of  these  Pharisees  the  scribes 
were  the  ofHcial  or  professional  leaders,  and  the  names  are  therefore 
sometimes  interchanged,  and  still  more  frequently  combined  as  here. 
Nothing  could  be  more  at  variance  with  their  hollow  ceremonial 
sanctity  than  Christ's  association  with  these  excommunicated  sinners 
and  apostates,  and  especially  his  free  participation  in  their  food,  on 
which  the  Jews  of  that  age  especially  insisted  as  a  means  and  mark 
of  separation  from  the  Gentiles  (Acts  10,  28),  and  from  those  among 
themselves  whom  they  regarded  as  mere  heathen  (Matt.  18,  17.)  Un- 
prepared as  yet  to  make  an  open  opposition  to  the  Saviour,  and 
perhaps  awed  by  his  presence,  they  present  their  complaint  in  the 
indirect  form  of  an  interrogation  addressed  not  to  him  but  his  disciples. 
To  eat  in  the  first  clause,  and  to  eat  ami  drink  in  the  second,  are 
equivalent  expressions,  both  conveying  the  same  general  ideas  of  food 
and  of  participation  in  it. 

lY.  When  Jesiis  lieard  (it),  he  saith  unto  them,  They 
that  are  whole,  have  no  need  of  the  physician,  but  they 
that  are  sick  :  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sin- 
ners, to  repentance.  ^ 

Though  addressed  to  the  disciples,  the  objection  is  replied  to  by  our 
Lord  himself,  and  as  usual  in  an  unexpected  form,  presenting  the  true 
question  at  issue,  and  suggesting  the  true  principle  or  method  of  solu- 
tion. Their  reproach  implied  a  false  view  of  his  whole  work  and  mis- 
sion, which  was  that  of  a  physician  ;  the  disease  was  sin ;  the  more 
sinful  any  man  or  class  of  men  were,  the  more  were  they  in  need 
of  his  attentions.  The  very  idea  of  a  healer  or  physician  presupposes 
sickness ;  they  that  are  whole  (or  well,  in  good  health)  need  no  such 
assistance.  The  figurative  description  of  his  work  is  followed  by  a  lite- 
ral one.  The  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critics  read,  I  came  not  to 
call  tlie  righteous^  hut  sinners.  This,  taken  by  itself,  would  seem  to 
mean  simply  that  his  errand  was  to  sinners,  that  his  message  was  ad- 
dressed to  thetn.  But  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  (5,  32),  as  Avell  as 
tiie  received  text  of  Mark  and  Matthew  (9.  13),  adds  the  words,  to  re- 


\ 


44  MARK  2,  17.  18. 

pentance,  thus  giving  to  the  verb  call,  at  least  in  reference  to  the  last 
clause,  the  specific  sense  of  summoning,  inviting,  or  exhorting.  Some 
interpreters  suppose  that  this  limitation  of  the  meaning  does  not  extend 
to  the  righteous,  who  are  said  to  be  called  (or  not  called)  in  the  vague 
sense  above  given — '  I  came  not  to  address  the  righteous,  but  to  sum- 
mon sinners  to  repentance.'  There  is  something  very  harsh,  however, 
in  supposing  the  same  verb  to  have  two  senses  in  one  sentence  without 
being  even  repeated.  A  far  more  natural  construction  is  to  give  it  the 
same  sense  in  relation  to  both  classes,  or  in  other  words,  to  let  the  addi- 
tional phrase  (^to  repentance)  qualify  the  whole  clause.  '  I  came  not  to 
call  the  righteous  to  repentance,  but  sinners.'  To  this  it  is  objected 
that  repentance  is  not  predicable  of  the  righteous.  This  depends  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  latter  term.  If  it  denote,  as  some  allege,  compara- 
tively righteous,  i.  e.  less  atrociously  or  notoriously  wicked  ;  or,  as 
others  think,  self-righteous,  righteous  in  their  own  eyes ;  then  the 
righteous  need  repentance  and  the  call  to  repentance  just  as  much  as 
others.  If  it  mean  absolutely  righteous,  i.  e.  free  from  sin,  which  is  the 
proper  meaning,  and  the  one  here  required  by  the  antithesis  with  sin- 
ners, it  is  true  that  such  cannot  repent,  and  need  not  be  exhorted  to 
repentance ;  but  this  is  the  very  thing  affirmed  according  to  the  natu- 
ral construction.  '  You  reproach  me  for  m}'  intercourse  with  sinners, 
but  my  very  mission  is  to  call  men  to  repentance,  and  repentance  pre- 
supposes sin ;  I  did  not  come  to  call  the  righteous  to  repentance,  for 
they  do  not  need  it  and  cannot  exercise  it,  but  to  call  sinners  as  such  to 
repentance.'  By  confining  to  repentance  to  the  second  member  of  the 
clause,  the  very  thing  most  pointedly  affirmed  is  either  left  out  or  ob- 
scurely hinted.  Another  error  as  to  this  verse  is  the  error  of  supposing 
that  our  Saviour  recognizes  the  existence  of  a  class  of  sinless  or  abso- 
lutely righteous  men  among  those  whom  he  found  upon  the  earth  at  his 
first  advent.  But  the  distinction  which  he  draws  is  not  between  two 
classes  of  men,  but  between  two  characters  or  conditions  of  the  whole 
race.  By  the  righteous  and  sinners  he  does  not  mean  those  men  who 
are  actually  righteous,  and  those  other  men  who  are  actually  sinners, 
but  mankind  as  righteous  and  mankind  as  sinners.  '  I  came  not  to 
call  men  as  unfallen  sinless  beings  to  repentance,  which  would  be  a 
contradiction,  but  as  sinners,  which  they  all  are  ;  and  I  therefore  not 
only  may  but  must  associate  with  sinners,  as  the  very  objects  of  my 
mission ;  just  as  the  physician  cannot  do  his  work  without  coming  into 
contact  with  the  sick,  who  are  alone  in  need  of  healing.'  lie  does  not 
mean  of  course  that  his  errand  was  to  Publicans  (as  sinners),  not  to 
Pharisees  (as  righteous),  but  simply  that  the  worse  the  former  were, 
the  more  completely  did  they  fall  within  the  scope  of  his  benignant 
mission. 

18.  And  the  disciples  of  Jolm,  and  of  the  Pli.'irisees, 
used  to  fast :  and  tliey  come,  and  say  nnto  him,  Wliy  do 
tlic  disciples  of  John,  and  of  the  Pharisees  fast,  but  thy 
disciples  last  not  ? 


MARK  2,  18.  45 

Near  akin  to  the  charge  of  undue  condescension  and  familiar  inter- 
course with  sinners  is  that  of  a  free  and  self-indulgent  life,  to  the 
neglect  of  all  ascetic  mortifications.     It  is  doubtful,  and  comparative!}'- 
unmiportant,whether  this  charge  was  made  upon  the.same  or  a  different 
occasion.    It  by  no  means  follows  from  the  consecution  and  connection  of 
the  narratives,  even  in  Luke  (5,  33)  and  Matthew  (9, 14),  that  the  account 
of  Matthew's  feast  is  there  continued,  while  in  Mark  another  instance 
of  the  same  kind  seems  to  be  added  without  any  reference  to  the  date 
of  its  occurrence  ;  an  arrangement  perfectly  consistent  with  the  general 
practice  of  the  evangelists,  who  adhere  to  the  exact  chronological  order 
only  when  it  is  the  most  convenient,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  reason 
for  departing  from  it.     In  the  case  before  us  it  is  very  possible,  though 
not  a  necessary  supposition,  that  the  writer  goes  on  to  complete  the 
series  of  objections  to  our  Saviour's  method  of  proceeding,  all  belonging 
doubtless  to  the  early  period  of  his  ministry,  though  not  perhaps  imme- 
diately successive.     The  discijjles  of  John  are  commonly  regarded  by 
interpreters  and  readers    as  worthy  representatives  of  John  himself, 
holding  his  doctrines  and  his  relative  position  with  respect  to  the  Mes- 
siah.    But  this  position  was  no  longer  tenable  5  the  ministry  of  John 
was  essentially  prospective  and  preparatory;    its  very  object  was  to 
bring  men  to  Christ  as  the  lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world  (John  1,  29.)     Had  all  John's  followers  imbibed  his  spirit  and 
obeyed  his  precepts,  they  would  all  have  become  followers  of  Christ, 
as  some  did.     But  even  while  John  was  at  liberty,  and  in  despite  of  his 
remonstrances,  some  of  his  disciples  cherished  a  contracted  zeal  for  him 
as  the  competitor  of  Christ  (John  3,  26),  and  afterwards  became  a  new 
religious  party,  equally  unfaithful  to  the  principal  and  the  forerunner. 
These  are  the  disciples  of  John  mentioned  in  the  gospel,  after  his  im- 
prisonment and  the  consequent  cessation  of  his  public  ministry.     Of 
their  numbers  and  organic  state  we  have  no  information.     From  the 
passage  now  before  us,  where  they  are  connected  with  the  Pharisees, 
not  only  by  the  history  but  by  themselves  (Matt.  9,  14),  it  is  probable 
that  John's  severe  means  of  awakening  the  conscience  and  producing 
deep  repentance  were  continued  as  a  ceremonial  form  after  the  spirit 
had  departed.     A  remnant  of  this  school  or  party  reappears  in  Acts 
19,  1-7,  and  with  a  further  but  most  natural  corruption  in  one  or  more 
heretical  phenomena  of  later  history.     The  first  clause  of  this  verse  is 
understood  by  some  as  meaning  that  they  were  so  engaged  at  the  date 
of  these  occurrences,  perhaps  in  consequence  of  John's  death.     But  the 
Pharisees  could  hardl}"-  be  expected  to  unite  in  this  observance,  or  in 
any  other  with  the  followers  of  John  as  such,  except  by  a  fortuitous 
coincidence,  which  would  not  have  been  so  expressed.     This  difficulty 
is  avoided,  and  the  usage  of  the  language  better  satisfied,  b}^  understand- 
ing this  clause  as  the  statement  of  a  general  custom,  common  to  both 
schools  or  parties,  and  accounting  for  the  fact  of  the  joint  application 
here  recorded.     The  neglect  complained  of  would  be  equally  offensive 
to  the  followers  of  John  and  to  the  Pharisees,  however  they  might  dif- 
fer as  to  more  important  matters.     Tliey  were  fasting,  i  e.  statedly, 
and  as  a  matter  of  observance,  not  as  an  occasional  auxiliary  to  devo- 


46  MARK  2,  18.  19. 

tion,  or  a  special  means  of  spiritual  discipline.  They  come  to  Mm  seems 
naturally  to  embrace  both  antecedents,  the  disciples  of  John  and  the 
Pharisees,  although  it  may  possibly  refer  only  to  the  former,  who  alone 
are  named  by  Matthew  (9,  14),  while  Luke  (5,  33)  does  not  t^pecify 
the  subject  of  the  sentence,  which  some  interpreters  supply  from  v.  30 
{scribes  and  pliarisees)  ;  but  the  chronological  connection  of  the  pas- 
sages, as  we  have  seen,  is  altogether  doubtful.  On  the  whole,  it  is 
most  probable  that  some  of  either  class  united  in  the  question,  which 
implies  or  rather  asserts,  that  their  practice  was  in  this  respect  the 
same.  For  ichat^  i.  e.  for  what  cause  or  reason  ?  Fast^  i.  e.  habitually, 
statedly,  a  further  confirmation  of  the  meaning  put  upon  the  first 
clause,  as  they  could  scarcely  mean  to  ask  why  the  disciples  did  not 
join  in  the  particular  fast  which  they  were  then  observing.  The  only 
stated  fast  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law  is  that  of  the  great  day  of 
atonement,  in  which  were  summed  up  all  the  expiatory  ceremonies  of 
the  5'ear  (Lev.  IG,  29-34.)  But  before  the  close  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment canon,  we  find  traces  of  additional  fasts  added  by  the  Jews  them- 
selves (Zech.  8,  I'J),  and  in  the  time  of  Christ  an  intimation  by  himself 
that  the  Pharisees  observed  two  weekly  fasts  (Luke  18,  12.)  The 
Jewish  traditions,  though  of  later  date,  confirm  the  general  fact  here 
stated.  The  fasts  observed  by  John's  disciples  were  either  the  tradi- 
tional ones  common  to  all  other  Jews,  or  formal  repetitions  of  those 
used  by  John  as  temporary  remedies,  perhaps  a  servile  imitation  of  his 
personal  austerity  and  abstinence.  We  have  no  reason  to  believe,  and 
it  is  highly  improbable,  indeed,  that  John  himself  established  stated 
favStS,  \vhich  would  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  his  intermediate  posi- 
tion, as  the  last  prophet  of  the  old  dispensation  and  the  herald  of  the 
new,  but  commissioned  neither  to  improve  upon  the  one  nor  to  antici- 
pate the  other.  But  thy  disciplcs/ast  ?iot,  though  a  simple  statement 
of  a  fact,  derives  from  its  connection  a  censorious  character,  as  if  they 
meant  to  say,  how  is  this  omission  to  be  justified  or  reconciled  with 
th}^  pretensions  as  a  teacher  sent  from  God  ?  (John  3,  2  )  In  this 
case  they  complain  to  him  of  his  disciples,  as  in  that  before  it  they 
complain  to  them  of  him  (v.  IG),  and  in  the  first  which  JMark  records 
merely  condemn  him  in  their  hearts  without  giving  oral  expression  to 
their  censures  (vs.  G-8.)  This  charge,  though  indirect  and  interroga- 
tive in  form,  may  be  regarded  as  confirming  what  we  know  from  other 
quarters,  and  especially  from  Christ's  own  words  below,  that  his  life 
and  that  of  his  disciples  were  alike  free  from  the  opposite  extremes  of 
frivolous  self-indulgence  and  austere  moroseness. 

19.  And  Jesus  said  unto  tliem.  Can  the  children  of 
tlie  bride-chamber  fast,  while .  the  bridegroom  is  with 
them  ?  As  long  as  they  have  the  bridegroom  wdth  them, 
they  cannot  fast. 

The  reply  to  this  charge  is  as  unexpected  and  original  in  form  as 
either  of  the  others,  and  made  still  more  striking  by  its  being  borrowed 


MARK  2,  19.  20.  47 

from  familiar  customs  of  the  age  and  country,  namely,  from  its  mar- 
riage ceremonies,  and  particularly  from  the  practice  of  the  bridegroom 
bringing  home  his  bride  accompanied  by  chosen  friends  of  either  sex, 
rejoicing  over  them  and  ibr  them.  These,  in  the  oriental  idiom,  were 
styled  children  of  the  bridal  chamber,  i.  e.  specially  belonging  to  it  and 
connected  with  it,  something  more  than  mere  guests  or  attendants  at 
the  wedding.  The  specific  term  sons,  here  used  in  all  the  gospels,  desig- 
nates the  male  attendants  upon  such  occasions.  The  Ijridegroom  is  in 
Greek  an  adjective  derived  from  hride  and  answering  to  tridcd^  miptlal. 
Used  absolutely,  it  denotes  tJte  hHdal  {mem),  or  hridesinan,  called  in 
English  'bridegroom,  and  differing  from  husband }U&t  as  bride  does  fiom 
loife.  There  may  be  here  a  double  allusion,  first,  to  the  favourite  Old 
Testament  figure  of  a  conjugal  relation  between  God  and  Israel  (as  in 
Ps.  xlv.  Isai.  liv.  Jer.  ii.  Hos.  iii.),  and  then  to  John  the  Baptist's  iDcau- 
tiful  description  of  the  mutual  relation  between  him  and  Christ  as  that 
of  the  bridegroom  and  the  bridegroom's  friend  (John  3,  29.)  The  foi-m 
of  the  question  is  highly  idiomatic,  being  that  used  when  a  negative 
answer  is  expected.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  in  English  is  a  "nega- 
tive followed  by  a  question, — '  they  cannot — can  they  ?  '  The  incapa- 
cit}^  implied  is  not  a  physical  but  moral  one.  They  cannot  be  expected, 
or  required  to  fiist ;  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  fast.  The  gen- 
eral principle  involved  or  presupposed  is  that  fasting  is  not  a  periodical 
or  stated,  but  a  special  and  occasional  observance,  growing  out  of  a  par- 
ticular emergency.  This  doctrine  underlies  the  whole  defence  of  his 
disciples,  which  proceeds  upon  tlie  supposition  that  a  fast,  to  be  accept- 
able and  useful,  must  have  a  reason  and  occasion  of  its  own,  beyond  a 
general  propriety  or  usage.  It  is  also  assumed  that  fasting  is  not  a 
mere  02Jiis  oj^eratum,,  but  the  cause  and  the  eflect  of  a  particular  con- 
dition, that  of  spiritual  grief  or  sorrow  (Matt.  9,  15.) 

20.  But  the  days  will  come,  when  the  bridegroom 
shall  be  taken  away  from  them,  and  then  shall  thej  fast 
in  those  days. 

The  duty  of  fasting  being  thus  dependent  upon  circumstances,  may 
and  will  become  incumbent  when  those  circumstances  change,  as  they 
are  certainly  to  change  hereafter.  The  bridegroom  is  not  always  to  be 
visibly  present,  and  when  he  departs,  the  time  of  fasting  will  be  coTue, 
To  express  this  still  more  strongl}",  he  is  said  to  be  removed  or  taken 
awaj'-,  as  if  by  violence.  Then,  at  the  time  of  this  removal,  as  an  im- 
mediate temporary  cause  of  sorrow,  not  forever  afterwards,  which 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  principle  already  laid  down,  that  the 
value  of  religious  fasting  is  dependent  on  its  being  an  occasional  and 
not  a  stated  duty.  There  is  no  foundation  therefore  for  the  doctrine  of 
some  Romish  writers,  who  evade  this  argument  against  their  stated 
fasts,  by  alleging  that  according  to  our  Lord's  own  declaration,  the 
church  after  his  departure  was  to  be  a  fasting  church.  But  this  would 
be  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  Saviour's  exaltation  would  consign  his 
people  to  perpetual  sorrow.     For  he  evidently  speaks  of  grief  and 


48  M  A 11 K  2,  20.  21 

fasting  as  inseparable,  and  in  Matthew's  narrative  of  his  reply,  the 
former  term  is  substituted  for  the  latter  (Matt.  9,  15.)  Even  the 
plural  form,  in  those  days,  has  respect  to  the  precise  time  of  his  de- 
parture, much  more  the  singular,  in  that  day.  which  the  latest  critics 
have  adopted  as  the  true  text. 

21.  No  man  also  seweth  a  piece  of  new  cloth  on  an 

old  garment :  else  the  new  piece  that  filled  it  np,  taketh 

away  from  the  old,  and  the  rent  is  made  worse. 

Although  Mark  has  not  yet  recorded  any  of  Christ's  formal  parables, 
he  gives  us  in  this  passage  several  examples  of  his  parabolical  method 
of  instruction,  i.  e.  by  illustration  drawn  from  the  analogies  of  real  life. 
Having  already  employed  some  of  the  prevailing  marriage  customs  to 
account  for  the  neglect  of  all  austerities  by  his  disciples,  he  proceeds  to 
enforce  the  general  principle  which  he  is  laying  down,  by  other  analo- 
gies derived  from  the  festivities  of  such  occasions,  and  particularly  from 
the  dresses  and  the  drinks  which  were  considered  indispensable  at  mar- 
riage feasts.    The  first  parable,  as  it  is  expressly  called  by  Luke  (5,  36), 
is  suggested  by  the  homely  but  familiar  art  of  patching,  and  consists  in 
a  description  of  the  general  practice  of  what  everybody  does,  or  rather 
of  what  no  one  does,  in  such  a  matter.     This  appeal  to  constant  univer- 
sal usage  shows,  that  however  we  may  understand  the  process  here 
alluded  to,  it  must  have  been  entirely  familiar  and  intelligible  to  the 
hearers.     The  essential  undisputed  points  are  that  he  represents  it  as 
an  unheard  of  and  absurd  thing  to  combine  an  old  and  naw  dress,  by 
sewing  parts  of  one  upon  the  other.     The  incongruity,  thus  stated  by 
the  other  two  evangelists  (Matt.  9, 16.  Luke  5,  36),  is  rendered  much 
more  clear  b}'-  Mark's  explanation  of  a  new  dress,  as  meaning  one  com- 
posed of  unf  ailed  cloth,  and  therefore  utterly  unfit  for  the  kind  of  com- 
bination here  alluded  to.    Ulse,  literally,  if  not,  which  may  seem  to  say 
the  very  opposite  of  what  our  Saviour  really  intends  ajid  the  coniicetion 
here  demands,  but  which  means,  if  he  does  not  act  upon  this  prmciple  or 
adhere  to  this  universal  custom.     Both  the  text  and  the  construction 
of  the  next  clause  have  been  much  disputed  ;  but  the  true  sense  seems  to 
be  the  one  expressed  in  the  common  version,  namel}'^,  that  the  new  piece 
or  filling  up,  by  shrinking  or  by  greater  strength  of  fibre,  loosens  or 
weakens  the  old  garment  still  more,  and  the  rent  becomes  worse.     The 
essential  idea   here  expressed  is  evidently   that  of  incongruit}'',   with 
special  reference  to  old  and  new.     It  admits  of  various  applications  to 
the  old  and  new  economy  the  old  and  new  nature  of  the  individual,  and 
many  other  contrasts  of  condition  and  of  character.     The  primary  use 
of  it,  suggested  b}^  the  context  and  historical  occasion,  was  to  teach  the 
authors  of  this  charge  that  they  must  not  expect  in  the  Messiah's  king- 
dom a  mere  patching  up  of  what  had  had  its  day  and  done  its  office,  by 
(empirical  repairs  and  emendations  of  a  later  date,  but  an  entire  renova- 
tion of  the  church  and  of  religion  ;  not  as  to  its  essence  or  its  vital  prin- 
ciple, but  as  to  all  its  outward  forms  and  vehicles.     As  the  usages 
immediately  in  question  were  of  human  not  divine  institution,  whatever 


MARK   2,  21.  22.  23.  49 


there  may  be  in  this  similitude  of  sarcasm  or  contempt,  belongs  not 
even  to  tlie  temporar}'  forms  of  the  jMosaic  dispensation,  but  to  its  tra- 
ditional excrescences. 

22.  And  no  man  piittetli  new  wine  into  old  bottles  : 
else  the  new  wine  doth  burst  the  bottles,  and  the  wine  is 
spilled,  and  the  bottles  will  be  marred  :  but  new  wine 
must  be  put  into  new  bottles. 

The  same  essential  truth  is  now  propounded  in  another  parabolic 
form,  likewise  borrowed  from  the  experience  of  common  life.  Instead 
of  old  and  new  cloth,  the  antithesis  is  now  between  old  and  new  skins 
as  receptacles  for  new  wine,  the  fermenting  strength  of  which  distends 
the  fresh  skins  without  injury,  but  bursts  the  rigid  leather  of  the  old 
ones.  The  word  bottles  is  of  course  to  be  explained  with  reference  to 
the  oriental  use  of  goat  skins  to  preserve  and  carry  water,  milk,  wine, 
and  other  liquids.  The  attempt  to  determine  who  are  meant  by  the 
bottles,  and  what  by  the  wine,  proceeds  upon  a  false  assumption  with 
respect  to  the  structure  and  design  of  parables,  which  are  not  to  be 
expounded  by  adjusting  the  minute  points  of  resemblance  first,  and 
then  deducing  from  the  aggregate  a  general  conclusion,  but  by  first 
ascertaining  the  main  analogy,  and  then  adjusting  the  details  to  suit  it. 
(See  below,  on  4.  2.)  This  is  the  method"  universally  adopted  in  ex- 
pounding fables,  which  are  only  a  particular  species  of  the  parable,  dis- 
tinguished b}''  the  introduction  of  the  lower  animals,  as  representatives 
of  moral  agents.  In  explaining  iEsop's  fable  of  the  Fox  and  the  Grapes, 
no  one  ever  thinks  of  putting  a  distinctive  meaning  on  the  grapes,  as  a 
particular  kind  of  fruit,  or  on  the  limbs  of  the  fox  as  having  each  its 
own  significance.  Yet  this  is  the  expository  method  almost  universally 
applied  to  the  parables.  By  varying  the  form  of  his  illustration  here, 
without  a  change  in  its  essential  import,  he  teaches  us  to  ascertain  the 
latter  fii'st,  and  then  let  the  mere  details  adjust  themselves  accordingly. 
The  last  clause  furnishes  the  key  to  both  similitudes.  New  to  hie  must 
he  2^ut  into  neio  bottles.  In  religion,  no  less  than  in  secular  affairs,  new 
emergencies  require  new  means  to  meet  them  ;  but  these  new  means  are 
not  to  be  devised  by  human  wisdom,  but  appointed  by  divine  authority. 

23.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  Avent  through  the 
corn-fields  on  the  sabbath-day ;  and  his  disciples  began, 
as  they  went,  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn. 

A  fourth  charge  or  ground  of  opposition  to  the  Saviour,  on  the  part 
of  the  more  scrupulous  and  rigid  Jews,  was  his  alleged  violation  of  the 
Sabbath,  either  in  person  or  by  suffering  his  followers  to  do  what  was 
esteemed  unlawful.  This  divine  institution,  as  already  mentioned  (see 
above,  on  1, 21),  being  chiefly  negative  in  its  observance,  was  less  affected 
by  a  change  of  outward  situation  than  the  legal  ceremonies,  most  of 
which  were  limited  to  one  place,  and  could  not  be  performed  without 
3 


50  M  A  R  K  2,  23. 

irregularity  elsewhere.     Hence  the  Jews  in  foreign  lands,  being  cut  off 
from  the  offering  of  sacrifices  and  the  formal  celebration  of  their  J'early 
festivals,  were  chiefly   distinguished  from  the   Gentiles  among  whom 
they  dwelt  by  two  observances,  those  of  circumcision  and  the  Sabbaih, 
and  especially  the  It^tter,  as  the  more  notorious  and  palpable  peculiarity 
of  their  religion.     Hence  the  prophets  who  predict  the  exile,  lay  pecu- 
liar stress  on  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  as  the  badge  of  a  true 
Israelite.     (Isa.  56,  2.    58,13.    Lam.  2,  6.    Ezek.  44,  24.    Hos.  2, 11.) 
After  the  restoration,  when  the  same  necessity  no  longer  existed,  the 
people  were  disposed  to  exaggerate  this  duty  by  gratuitous  restrictions, 
and  by  pushing  the  idea  of  religious  rest  (which  was  the  essence  of  the 
Sabbath)  to  an  absurd  extreme,  at  the  same  time  losing  sight  of  its 
spiritual  purpose,  and  confining  their  attention  to  the  outward  act,  or 
rather  abstinence  from  action,  as  intrinsically  holy  and  acceptable  to 
God.    One  of  the  Jewish  books  enumerates  thirty-nine  acts,  with  many 
subdivisions,  which  were  to  be  considered  as  unlawful  labour,  and  the 
Talmud  gives  the  most  minute  specifications  of  the  distance  which  might 
be  lawfully  passed  over,  even  in  the  greatest  emergencies,  as  that  of  fire. 
With  these  distorted  and  corrupted  notions  of  the  Sabbath,  they  would 
soon  find   something  to  condemn  in  the   less   punctilious   but  more 
rational  and  even  legal  conduct  of  our  Lord  and  his  disciples.     Two 
such  attacks,  with  their  historical  occasions,  are  recorded  here  by  Mark, 
the  first  of  which  fills  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  (vs.  23-28.)     It  is 
also  given  by  Matthew  (12,  1-8)  and  Luke  (G,  1-5),  by  the  former 
more   and  by  the  latter  less  minutely,  and  with  some  variation  as  to 
form  and  substance,  but  without  the  least  real  inconsistency.     One  of 
the  points  of  difference  is  in  the  chronological  arrangement,  Matthew 
connecting  what  is  here  recorded  with  his  previous  context  by  the  gen- 
eral formula,  in  that  time,  while  Luke  specifies  the  very  Sabbath  upon 
which  it  happened.     As  Mark  has  no  indication  of  time  whatever,  it  is 
clear  that  he  is  putting  things  together,  not  as  immediately  successive 
in  the  time  of  their  occurrence,  but  as  belonging  to  the  same  class  or 
series,  that  of  the  objections  made  by  the  censorious  Jews,  on  legal 
grounds,  to  Christ's  proceedings.     Hence  this  topic  occupies  an  earlier 
place  in  Mark  than  in  either  of  the  other  gospels,  and  when  taken  in 
CQnnection  with  their  marked  agreement,  even  in  minute  forms  of  ex- 
pression, proves  that  while  they  used  the  same  material  and  aimed  at 
the  same  ultimate  design,  each  was  directed  to  pursue  his  own  plan 
independently  of  both  the  others.     It  came  to  ^xiss  (^or  liaj^i^ened^y 
although  it  decides  nothing  in  reference  to  the  time  of  the  occurrence,  ap- 
pears rather  to  imply  that  it  was  different  from  that  of  the  preceding 
topic.     As  if  he  had  said,  '  another  incident,  exhibiting  the  spirit  of 
these  censors,  was  as  follows.'    Went,  literally  went  Ijy  or  along,  imply- 
ing that  he  crossed  the  corn-field  merely  on  his  way  to  some  place,  and 
not  wantonly  or  idly,  much  less  for  the  purpose  of  provoking  this 
objection.     Cornfields,  literally  soicrn  (fields),  i.  e.  sown  with  corn,  in 
the  proper  English  sense  of  grain  or  bread-stuffs,  with  particular  refer- 
ence to  wheat  and  barley.     That  the  corn  was  grown  and  ripe,  though 
not  expressly  mentioned,  is  implied  in  all  that  follows.    On  theSaVbath 


MARK  2.  23.  24.  61 

day,  literally  in  tlie  Sadiatks,  which  may  seem  to  indicate  that  this 
particular  occurrence  took  place  more  than  once,  or  that  this  clause  is 
descriptive,  of  a  customary  action.     But  the  plural  form  of  the  Greek 
word  is  purely  accidental,  and  arises  either  from  assimilation  to  Greek 
names  of  festivals  (compare  John  10,  22),  or  from  the  fact  that  the 
Hebrew  word  Sdbhath  (n*tt;)  in  its  Aramaic  form  (Nna'i)  resembles  a 
Greek  plural  ((Td(3[3aTa),  and  is  often  so  inflected,  although  singular  in 
meaning.     His  discijjies,  his  immediate  personal  attendants,  probably 
those  whose  call  has  previously  been  recorded,  Peter  and  Andrew, 
James,  and  John,  and  Matthew,  perhaps  with  the  addition  of  some 
others  who  received  his  doctrine,  and  were  therefore  7iis  disciples  in  a 
wider  sense.     Our  Lord  appears  to  have  been  seldom  free  from  the 
society  of  others,  either  friends  or  foes,  so  that  he  was  sometimes  under 
the  necessity  of  escaping  from  them  for  a  time,  especially  for  devotional 
purposes.     (See  above,  on  1.  35.)     Began  is  not  a  pleonastic  or  super- 
fluous expression,   but  suggests  that  they  were  interrupted,  or  that 
while  they  were  so  doing,  the  ensuing  dialogue  took  place.     Began,  as 
they  icent,  to  2^luclc,  or,  retaining  the  original  construction,  they  ~began 
to  make  way,  jjlucMng.    To  maJ:e  way,  in  the  sense  of  going  or  proceed- 
ing, is  a  phrase  found  both  in  Hebrew  ( Judg.  17,  8),  and  in  classic 
Greek,  although  the  middle  voice  is  commonly  employed  b}^  the  older 
writers.     The  obvious  meaning  is  that  they  went  along  plucking  the 
ears,  or  plucked  them  as  they  went.     Yet  one  of  the  ablest  German 
writers  on  this  passage  insists  on  what  he  calls  the  strict  sense,  namely, 
that  they  made  a  way  or  broke  a  path  through  the  standing  corn  by 
plucking  up  the  stalks,  and  that  Mark's  account,  which  says  nothing  of 
their  eating  the  grains,  is  therefore  at  variance  with  those  of  Luke  and 
Matthew  I     This  may  serve  as  an  example  of  the  influence  exerted  on 
interpretation  by  the  supposed  candor  of  exaggerating  every  real  differ- 
ence, and  ingeniously  contriving  false  ones,  rather  than  adopt  the  com- 
mon-sense expedient  constantly  employed  in  our  tribunals,  of  allowing 
witnesses  not  otherwise  discredited,  to  explain  and  supplement  each 
other's  statements,  and  of  looking  upon  minor  variations  as  confirming 
rather  than  impairing  their  essential  agreement.     Another  objection 
to  this  forced  construction  is.,  that  Mark,  as  well  as  Luke  and  Matthew, 
speaks  of  ears  and  not  of  stalls,  and  m.ust  therefore  equally  have  refer- 
ence to  eating,  and  not  to  the  breaking  of  a  path,  which  could  not  be 
effected  by  merely  plucking  the  ears  of  wheat  or  barlej-. 

24.  And  tlie  Pharisees  said  unto  liim,  Behold,  why  do 
they  on  the  sabbath-day  that  which  is  not  lawful  ? 

The  PTiarisees,  i.  e.  certain  of  that  class  who  seem  to  have  been  near 
at  hand  whenever  Christ  appeared  in  public.  This  will  be  less  sur- 
prising if  we  consider  that  the  Pharisees  were  not  a  small  and  select 
body,  but  the  great  national  party  who  insisted  on  the  smallest  points 
of  difference  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  most  probabl}'-  included 
the  mass  of  the  nation.  (See  above,  on  v.  18.)  The  expression  here 
used,  therefore,  is  nearly  equivalent  to  saying,  certain  strict  punctilious 


52  MARK  2,  24.  25.  26. 

Jews  who  happened  to  be  present.  Mark  and  Matthew  represent  them 
as  complaining  to  the  Master  of  his  disciples;  while,  according  to  Luke, 
the  objection  was  addressed  to  the  latter.  Both  accounts  are  perfectly 
consistent,  whether  we  suppose  Luke  to  describe  the  indirect  attack 
upon  them  as  a  direct  one,  or.  which  seems  more  natural,  assume  that 
both  our  Lord  and  his  followers  were  thus  addressed  by  diflfcrent  per- 
sons, either  at  once  or  in  succession.  See,  behold,  implying  something 
strange  and  hard  to  be  believed.  WJiy,  i.  e.  with  what  right,  or  b}-- 
what  authority?  The  question  therefore  implies  censure,  as  in  v.  7.  16, 
above.  On  the  Snihat/i  what  is  not  lairful,  i.  e.  what  is  not  lawful  on 
the  Sabbath.  Instead  of  this  obvious  and  natural  construction,  the 
writer  above  quoted  understands  the  clause  to  mean,  why  do  they  on 
the  Sabbath  (as  an  aggravating  circumstance)  what  is  not  lawful  at 
any  time,  meaning  the  injury  done  to  the  corn  by  breaking  a  way 
through  it?  The  simple  act  of  plucking  and  eating  was  expressly 
allowed  by  the  law  of  Moses  (Deut.  23,  25.)  The  unlawfulness  must 
therefore  have  consisted  either  in  this  wanton  waste  or  in  doing  on  the 
Sabbath  what  on  any  other  day  would  have  been  lawful.  But  of  waste 
or  damage  to  the  grain,  the  text,  as  we  have  seen,  contains  no  trace  or 
intimation.  It  was  therefore  not  the  act  itself,  but  the  time  of  its  per- 
formance, that  gave  occasion  to  the  charge  before  us,  as  we  learn  from 
Maimonides  that  the  tradition  of  the  fathers  reckoned  the  act  here 
described  as  a  kind  of  harvesting  or  reaping,  and  as  such  forbidden 
labour  on  the  Sabbath. 

25.  And  lie  said  unto  tliem,  Have  ye  never  read  vv'liat 
David  did,  wlien  he  had  need,  and  was  an  hungered,  he 
and  they  that  were  with  him  ? 

26.  How  he  went  into  the  house  of  God,  in  the  days 
of  Abiathar  the  high  priest,  and  did  eat  the  shew  bread, 
which  is  not  lawful  to  eat,  but  for  the  priests,  and  gave 
also  to  them  which  were  with  liim  ? 

By  a  combination  of  the  three  accounts  we  learn  that  Christ  de- 
fended his  disciples  from  this  frivolous  and  malignant  charge  by  five 
distinct  arguments,  two  of  which  have  been  preserved  by  all  three 
gospels,  one  by  Mark  alone,  and  two  by  Matthew  alone  (12,  5-7.)  The 
first  place  is  assigned  by  all  to  the  same  answer.  This  is  drawn  from 
the  Old  Testament  history,  and  presupposes  their  acquaintance  with  it, 
and  their  habit  of  reading  it.  It  also  presupposes  their  acknowledg- 
ment of  David  as  an  eminent  servant  of  God,  all  whose  official  acts, 
unless  divinely  disapproved,  afford  examples  to  those  placed  in  similar 
situations.  The  narrative  referred  to  is  still  extant  in  1  Samuel  21, 
1-6,  which  is  thus  proved  to  be  a  part  of  the  canon  recognized  by 
Christ.  The  house  of  God,  in  which  he  dwelt  among  his  people,  an 
expression  no  less  applicable  to  the  tabernacle  than  the  temple.  As 
the  ancient  sanctuary,  under  both  its  forms,  was  meant  to  symbolize 
the  doctrine  of  divine  inhabitation  and  peculiar  presence  with  the  cho- 


MARK  2,  26,  53 

sen  people,  it  was  movable  as  long  as  they  were  wandering  and  un- 
settled; but  as  soon  as  they  had  taken  full  possession  of  the  promised 
land,  which  was  not  till  the  reign  of  David,  the  portable  tent  was  ex- 
changed for  a  permanent  substantial  dwelling.  At  the  time  here  men- 
tioned the  tabernacle  was  at  Nob  (1  Sam.  21,  1.)  The  shew-bread, 
literally,  dread  of  presentation,  called  in  Hebrew,  hread  o/(the  divine) 
face  (or  presence),  consisted  of  twelve  loaves  or  cakes  placed  in  rows 
upon  a  table  in  the  Holy  Place  or  outward  apartment  of  the  tabernacle, 
and  renewed  every  Sabbath,  when  the  old  were  eaten  by  the  priests 
on  duty  (Lev.  24,  5-9.)  Whatever  may  have  been  the  meaning  of 
this  singular  observance,  it  was  certainly  a  necessary  and  divinely  in- 
stituted part  of  the  tabei'nacle-service,  resting  on  the  same  authority, 
though  not  of  equal  moment  with  the  Sabbath.  The  relevancy  of  the 
case  here  cited  is  enhanced  by  the  probability  that  David's  desecration 
of  the  shew-bread  was  itself  committed  on  the  Sabbath,  as  the  loaves 
appear  to  have  been  just  renewed  (1  Sam.  21,  G.)  It  is  not  lawful, 
i.  e.  not  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  which  our  Lord  and  his  disciples 
were  accused  of  breaking.  In  either  case,  the  positive  observance, 
though  legitimate  and  binding,  must  give  way  to  the  necessity  of  self- 
preservation,  a  principle  more  formally  propounded  in  the  next  verse. 
Before  leaving  this,  however,  we  must  notice  an  apparent  inconsistency 
between  the  citation,  as  Mark  gives  it,  and  the  original  passage,  where 
the  priest  who  furnished  David  with  the  bread  is  called  Ahimelech. 
Even  if  no  solution  could  be  given  of  this  discrepancy,  it  would  be  ab- 
surd to  let  it  shake  our  faith  in  the  substantial  truth  of  either  narra- 
tive. It  would  not  even  be  admissible,  with  Beza  and  his  famous 
Codex,  to  omit  the  questionable  clause  as  spurious,  nor  necessary  t-o  fall 
back  upon  the  general  liability  of  names  and  numbers  to  the  risk  of 
textual  corruption.  Even  if  the  passage  be  retained,  and  in  its  ordi- 
nary form,  there  are  several  possible  solutions,  any  one  of  which  is  far 
more  likely  than  the  supposition  of  a  contradiction  or  a  blunder,  which 
would  certainly  have  been  detected  and  expunged,  instead  of  being 
cherished  and  transmitted  to  posterity.  The  least  probable  of  these 
solutions  is  the  one  which  instead  of  in  the  days  of  AbiatJiar  under- 
stands the  Greek  phrase  (eVi  A'lSta&ap)  to  mean  in  the  passage  of  the 
sacred  history  of  which  Abiathar  is  the  subject,  as  a  like  phrase  in 
two  other  places  is  now  commonly  explained  in  that  way.  (See  be- 
low, on  12,  26,  and  compare  Rom,  11,  2.)  Even  admitting  the  correct- 
ness of  the  explanation  there,  which  is  disputed,  it  is  here  forbidden 
by  the  position  of  the  words,  which  ought  to  have  come  after  did  ye 
never  read,  whereas  they  follow  hoio  he  entered,  and  by  the  obvious 
consideration  that  the  passage  cited  is  not  and  could  not  be  with  any 
propriety  called  by  the  name  of  Abiathar.  Another  explanation  of  the 
discrepancy  is  that  the  Greek  phrase  means  in  tlie  presence  of  Abiathar, 
although  Ahimelech  performed  the  act.  But  even  if  the  fact  were  so, 
which  is  assumed  without  the  slightest  proof,  why  should  a  person 
merely  present  have  been  named,  when  the  act  in  question  was  per- 
formed by  another  ?  The  nearest  approach  to  a  satisfactory  solution 
is  afforded  by  the  strange  variation  in  the  name  of  this  priest  in  differ- 


54  MARK  2, '20.  27. 

ent  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  itself.  Thus  we  read  of  Ahiah  the  son 
of  Ahitub  (1  Sam.  14,  3).  Abiathar  the  son  of  Ahimelech  (1  Sam. 
22,  20),  Ahmielech  the  son  of  Abiathar  (2  Sam.  8,  17),  and  Abimelech 
the  sou  of  Abiathar  (1  Chr.  18,  16.)  It  is  easy  to  assert,  as  some  do, 
that  these  are  also  blunders  of  the  author  or  transcriber ;  biit  it  is  no 
less  easy  to  assert,  and  far  more  likely  to  be  true,  that  both  names, 
Abiathar  and  Ahimelech  (Abimelech)  were  then  hereditary  in  the 
sacerdotal  race,  and  sometimes  borne  by  the  same  person.  Of  this 
there  is  indeed  no  direct  proof;  if  there  were,  the  exegetical  dispute 
would  cease ;  but  in  a  choice  of  difficulties,  such  as  here  presents  itself, 
the  hypothesis  suggested  is  at  least  as  probable  as  that  of  gross  mis- 
take and  contradiction.  It  is  best,  however,  as  in  all  such  cases,  to 
leave  the  discrepancy  unsolved  rather  than  to  solve  it  by  unnatural 
and  forced  constructions.  A  difficulty  may  admit  of  explanation,  al- 
though we  may  not  be  able  to  explain  it,  and  the  multitude  of  cases  in 
which  riddles  once  esteemed  insoluble  have  since  been  satisfactorily 
settled,  should  encourage  us  to  hope  for  like  results  in  other  cases,  or 
to  leave  what  still  remains  inexplicable  undisturbed  by  efforts  at  solu- 
tion which  can  only  bring  discredit  on  the  Scriptures,  or  at  least  on  its 
expounders,  without  really  relieving  the  particular  embarrassment  to 
which  they  ov;e  their  origin. 

27.  And  lie  said  unto  tliem,  The  sabbath  was  made 
for  man,  and  not  man  for  tbe  sabbatli. 

Passing  over  the  two  arguments  preserved  by  Matthew,  one  de- 
rived from  the  labours  of  the  priests  in  the  temple  (12,  5.  6),  and  the 
other  from  Hosea's  declaration  of  God's  preference  of  human  welfare 
even  to  required  observances  (Hos.  6,  G.  Matt.  12,  7),  INIark  records 
an  answer,  found  in  neither  of  the  others,  though  involved  in  the  cita- 
tion from  Hosca,  and  perhaps  originally  uttered  as  a  kind  of  paraphrase 
or  commentary  on  it.  If  God  chooses  mercy,  i.  e.  kind  regard  to  hu- 
man happiness,  and  not  (i.  e.  rather  than)  sacrifice  (or  other  ceremo- 
nial service),  we  might  well  conclude,  though  it  were  not  recorded, 
that  the  Sabbath  is  an  institution  meant  for  human  benefit,  and  there- 
fore to  be  set  aside  when  inconsistent  with  it,  not  a  necessary  and 
inexorable  law,  to  which  the  interests  of  man  must  yield,  whenever 
they  are  brought  into  collision.  And  if  this  was  true  even  of  the  Sab- 
bath as  a  purely  divine  institution,  how  much  more  of  its  corruptions 
and  unauthorized  additions.  If  the  holy  rest  commanded  on  the  sev- 
enth day  might  lawfully  be  broken  for  the  sake  of  saving  life  or  even 
mitigating  its  distresses,  how  much  more  must  such  emergencies  dis- 
pense with  an  extravagant  and  uncommanded  abstinence  from  active 
labour.  He  said  unto  them,  i.  e.  further  or  again  upon  the  same  occa- 
sion, a  formula  frequently  employed  in  such  connections  to  distinguish 
sayings  uttered  at  the  same  time,  but  on  different  topics.  In  the  fourth 
chapter  of  this  Gospel,  for  example,  it  occurs  at  least  nine  times  (4,  8. 
9.  11.  13.  21.  24.  26.  30.  35.) 


MARK  2,  28.  55 

28.  Therefore,  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  sab- 
bath. 

This  was  an  inference  deduced  from  what  had  just  been  said  as  to  the 
mutual  connection  between  human  welfare  and  sabbatical  observance. 
Therefore,  or  more  exactly,  so  that  (as  a  necessary  consequence),  the 
Son  of  man  is  lord  (not  only  of  all  other  things  afiecting  human  hap- 
piness, but)  also  (or  even)  of  the  Sadhath,  which  you  might  supj)ose 
to  bo  exempt  from  his  control.  Grotius  and  others  have  endeavoured 
to  explain  Son  of  man,  in  this  place,  as  denoting  any  man  or  man  in 
general.  The  sense  will  then  be  that  as  the  Sabbath  was  appointed 
for  man's  benefit,  it  is  his  prerogative  to  regulate  and  use  it  for  his 
own  advantage.  But  to  this  construction,  although  specious,  there  are 
two  invincible  objections,  one  of  form  and  one  of  substance.  First, 
the  sentiment  expiessed  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  tenor  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  everywhere  deny  to  man  the  right  of  abrogating  or  sus- 
pending a  divine  institution  for  his  own  good  and  at  his  own  discretion. 
Such  a  prerogative  can  belong  only  to  a  divine  person,  i.  e.  to  God  as 
God,  or  to  God  incarnate  in  the  person  of  Messiah.  In  the  next  place, 
it  is  only  to  this  person,  the  Messiah,  that  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures 
will  allow  the  title  Son  of  Man  to  be  applied.  (See  above,  on  v.  10.) 
The  meaning  of  the  sentence  therefore  must  be,  that  the  Sabbath 
having  been  ordained  for  man,  not  for  any  individual,  but  for  the 
whole  race,  it  must  needs  be  subject  to  the  Son  of  Man,  who  is  its 
head  and  representative,  its  sovereign  and  redeemer.  This  implies 
that  though  the  Sabbath,  in  its  essence,  is  perpetual,  the  right  of  modi- 
fying and  controlling  it  belongs  to  Christ,  and  can  be  exercised  only 
under  his  authority. 


-•-^♦- 


CHAPTER  III. 

In  continuation  of  the  narrative  begun  in  the  preceding  chapter,  ^lark 
records  a  second  charge  of  Sabbath-breaking,  with  our  Lord's  defence, 
and  its  effect  upon  his  enemies  (1— (3.)  Meantime  his  fame  and  popular- 
ity were  growing,  not  diminished  by  the  partly  repressed  testimony  of 
the  evil  spirits  whom  he  cast  out  (7-12.)  At  this  important  junc- 
ture, when  his  popularity  is  at  its  height,  he  completes  his  first  step 
towards  the  reorganization  of  the  Church,  by  formally  embody mg  the 
twelve  Apostles  (13-19.)  The  concourse  still  continues,  and  his  friends 
endeavour  to  restrain  his  labours  (19-21.)  On  the  other  hand,  the 
rancour  of  the  scribes  from  Jerusalem  now  goes  so  far  as  to  accuse 
him  of  alliance  with  the  evil  one,  in  answering  which  charge  he  teaches 
them  the  fearful  doctrine  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  (2Q;p30.) 
On  the  same  occasion,  he  declares  his  independence  of  all  natural  rela- 


56  MARK  3,  1.  2. 

tions,  when  in  conflict  with  the  duty  which  he  owed  to  his  great  spir- 
itual  family  (31-35.) 

1.  And  he  entered  again  into  the  synagogue ;    and 
there  was  a  mnn  there  which  had  a  withered  hand. 

Mark  records  another  charge  of  Sabbath-breaking,  probably  to  show 
how  various  were  the  outward  occasions  of  such  opposition;  to  illus- 
trate the  variety  of  Christ's  defences ;  and  to  mark  the  first  concerted 
plan  for  his  destruction.  A(jain^  that  is,  on  a  different  occasion  from 
the  one  referred  to  in  2,  21.  The  synagogue^  most  probably  the  one 
there  mentioned.  Avhich  was  in  Capernaum.  Here,  as  in  2,  23,  the  ab- 
sence of  any  more  specific  note  of  time  shows  that  exact  chronological 
order  was  of  small  importance  to  the  author's  object.  There  is  some- 
what more  precision  as  to  this  point  in  the  parallel  accounts  of  Luke 
(6;  11)  and  Matthew  (12,  9.)  There  is  no  ground  in  the  text  of  either 
gospel  for  the  conjecture  of  some  writers,  that  the  presence  of  this 
suflerer  had  been  contrived  in  order  to  entrap  Christ.  The  constant  ap- 
phcation  for  his  healing  aid  precludes  the  necessity  of  such  a  supposi- 
tion, and  indeed  suggests  that  this  was  only  one  of  many  miracles  per- 
formed at  this  time,  and  is  recorded  in  detail  on  account  of  its  important 
bearing  on  the  progress  of  Christ's  ministry.  Withered^  literally,  dried 
or  dried  ^ip,  elsewhere  applied  to  liquids  (5,  29.  Rev.  10, 12),  and  to 
plants  (4,  6.  11.  20.  James  1, 11),  but  also  to  the  pining  away  of  the 
human  body  (see  below,  on  9,  18.)  The  passive  particijDle  adds  to  the 
meaning  of  the  adjective  {dry)  employed  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  the 
idea  that  it  was  not  a  congenital  infirmity,  but  the  effect  of  disease  or 
accident,  the  more  calamitous  because  it  was  the  right  hand  that  was 
thus  disabled  (Luke  6,  G.)  A  similar  affection,  pretcrnaturally  caused, 
was  that  of  Jeroboam  (1  Kings  13, 4-6.) 

2.  And  they  watched  him,  whether  he  would  lieal 
him  on  the  sabbath-day ;  that  they  might  accuse  him. 

We  have  here  a  striking  indication  that  the  opposition  to  our 
Saviour  was  becoming  more  inveterate  and  settled,  so  that  his  enemies 
not  only  censured  what  he  did,  but  watched  for  some  occasion  to  find 
fault  with  him,  WatcJied,  i,  e.  closely  or  intently,  as  suggested  by  the 
compound  form  of  the  Greek  verb,  both  here  and  in  Acts  9,  24. 
Whether  he  would,  literally,  if  he  will,  a  form  of  speech  which  repre- 
sents the  scene  as  actually  passing.  On  the  Saihath-day,  literally,  the 
Sabbaths,  a  form  used  above  in  2,  24,  and  there  explained.  The  motive 
of  their  watching  was  not  simply  curiosity,  but  a  deliberate  desire  to 
entrap  him.  That  they  might  accuse  him,  not  in  conversation  merely, 
but  before  the  local  judges,  who  were  probably  identical  with  the 
elders  or  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  or  at  all  events  present  at  the  stated 
time  and  place  of  public  worship.  The  subject  of  the  verb  is  not  ex- 
pressed by  Mark  and  Matthew,  although  easily  supplied  from  the  fore- 


MARK  3.  2.  3.  4.  57 

going  context  (2,  24.    Matt.  12.  2),  and  from  the  parallel  account  in 
Luke  (6,  7),  where  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  are  expressly  mentioned. 

3.  A.nd  he  saitli  unto  the  man  which  had  the  withered 

hand,  Stand  forth. 

This  direction  to  the  patient  is  placed  by  Matthew  (12,  13)  after 
the  address  to  his  accusers,  but  without  asserting  that  it  was  not  given 
sooner,  as  would  seem  to  be  the  case  from  the  accounts  of  Mark  and 
Luke,  who  represent  it  as  a  sort  of  preparation  for  the  subsequent  dis- 
course, which  would  be  rendered  more  impressive  by  the  sight  of  the 
man  standing  in  tJie  midst,  i.  e.  among  them,  and  no  doubt  in  a  con- 
spicuous position,  but  not  necessarily  in  the  exact  centre  of  the  house 
or  the  assembly.  This  phrase  is  omitted  in  our  version,  or  included  in 
the  phrase  stand  forth.  The  Greek  verb  is  the  same  with  that  in  1, 
31.  2,  9.  11.  12,  and  strictly  means  to  rouse  another  or  one's  self,  es- 
pecially from  sleep.  (See  below,  on  4,  27,  and  compare  Matt.  8,  25. 
Luke  8,  24.) 

4:.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Is  it  lawful  to  do  good  on 
the  sabbath-days,  or  to  do  evil  ?  to  save  life,  or  to  kill  ? 
but  they  held  their  peace. 

Before  proceeding  to  perform  the  miracle,  he  appeals  to  them  as  to 
the  question  of  its  lawfulness,  retorting  the  same  question  which  they 
had  already  put  to  him  (Matt.  12, 10).  as  if  he  had  said,  '  answer  your 
own  question  ;  I  will  leave  it  to  yourselves,  and  will  abide  by  j'our  de- 
cision, not  however  as  expressed  in  words  alone,  but  in  your  actions ' 
(Matt.  12, 11. 12.)  Is  it  lawful,  not  right  in  itself,  but  consistent  with 
the  law  of  Moses,  and  with  5'our  acknowledged  obligation  to  obey  it 
(see  above,  on  2,  24.  26.)  2'o  do  good  and  to  do  evil  may,  according 
both  to  etymology  and  usage,  mean  to  do  right  and  to  do  wrong  in  the 
general  (1  Pet.  3,  16. 17.  3  John,  11),  or  to  do  good  and  to  injure  in 
particular  (Acts  14,  17.)  On  the  former  supposition  the  meaning  of 
the  sentence  is,  'You  will  surely  admit  that  it  is  lawful  to  do  right  in 
preference  to  wrong  on  the  Sabbath,  as  on  any  other  day.'  But  as 
this  is  little  more  than  an  identical  proposition,  or  at  least  an  undis- 
puted truism  (namely,  that  what  is  right  is  lawful),  most  interpreters 
prefer  the  other  explanation,  according  to  which  our  Lord  is  not  assert- 
ing a  mere  truism,  which  his  hearers  were  as  ready  to  acknowledge  as 
himself,  but  pointing  out  their  obvious  mistake  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
action  which  they  had  condemned  beforehand.  Stripped  of  its  inter- 
rogative form,  the  sentence  contains  two  distinct  but  consecutive  prop- 
ositions. The  first  is  that  it  must  be  lawful,  even  on  the  Sabbath, 
to  confer  a  favour  or  to  do  a  kindness,  when  the  choice  lies  between 
that  and  the  doing  of  an  injury.  Even  if  not  absolutely  lawful,  it  would 
certainly  become  so  in  the  case  of  such  an  alternative.  The  next  prop- 
osition is  that  this  rule,  which  is  true  in  general,  is  en^phatically  true 
when  the  alternative  is  that  of  life  and  death.  To  this  may  be  added, 
3^' 


58  M  A  R  K  3,  4.  5 


as  a  tacit  influence,  not  formall}^  deduced,  but  left  to  be  drawn  by  the 
hearers  for  themselves,  that  such  a  case  was  that  before  them,  in  which 
to  refuse  help  was  virtually  to  destroy.  This  is  not  to  be  strictly  un- 
derstood as  meanin'j;  that  unless  the  withered  hand  were  healed  at  once 
the  man  would  die,  but  as  exemplifying  that  peculiar  method  of  pre- 
sentinnr  extreme  cases,  which  is  one  of  the  most  marked  characteristics 
of  our  Saviour's  teaching.  As  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  else- 
where (see  below,  on  9,  43.  48),  he  instructs  us  what  we  must  be  pre- 
pared to  do  in  an  extreme  case,  thus  providing  for  all  others ;  so  here 
he  exhibits  the  conclusion,  to  which  their  reasoning  naturally  tended, 
as  a  proof  that  it  must  be  erroneous.  If  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath  was 
not  only  a  divine  requisition,  but  an  intrinsic,  absolute  necessit}^,  to 
which  all  human  interests  must  yield,  this  could  be  no  less  true  in  an 
extreme  case  than  in  an}^  other,  so  that  life  itself  must  be  sacrificed  to 
it.  This  revolting  conclusion  could  be  avoided  only  by  admitting  that 
the  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  rested  on  authority,  and  might  by  that 
authority  be  abrogated  or  suspended.  This  implies  that  such  authority 
belonged  to  him,  that  he  was  not  acting  as  a  mere  man,  or  a  prophet, 
but  as  the  Son  of  man,  and  as  such  lord  of  the  Sabbath ;  so  that,  al- 
though his  answer  upon  this  occasion  is  in  form  quite  different  from 
that  before  recorded,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  and  proceeds  upon 
the  same  essential  principle.  Thus  understood,  the  sentence  may  be 
paraphrased  as  follows :  '  You  consider  me  a  breaker  of  the  law^,  be- 
cause I  heal  upon  the  Sabbath ;  but  you  must  admit  that  where  the 
choice  is  between  doing  good  and  evil,  for  example,  between  saving  life 
and  killing  upon  that  day,  we  are  bound  to  choose  the  former.  There 
is  therefore  some  limit  or  exception  to  the  obligation  which  you  urge 
upon  yourselves  and  others,  not  indeed  to  be  decided  by  your  own  dis- 
cretion or  caprice,  but  by  the  same  authority  which  first  imposed  it. 
Now  that  authority  I  claim  to  exercise,  a  claim  abvmdantl}'  attested  by 
the  very  miracles  on  which  your  charge  is  founded,  for  no  man  can  do 
such  things  unless  God  be  with  him.'     (Compare  John  3,  2.) 

5.  And  when  lie  had  looked  round  about  on  tliem  with 
anger,  being  grieved  for  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  lie 
Baitli  unto  the  man.  Stretch  forth  thine  hand.  And  lie 
stretched  (it)  out :  and  his  hand  was  restored  whole  as 
the  other. 

We  have  here  an  instance  of  what  some  regard  as  characteristic  of 
this  gospel,  and  ascribe  to  Peter's  influence  upon  it,  to  wit,  the 
occasional  description  of  our  Saviour's  feelings,  looks,  and  gestures, 
most  of  which  details  we  owe  exclusively  to  Mark.  (See  above,  on  2, 
41.)  Three  such  particulars  are  here  recorded,  one  external,  two  in- 
ternal. Loohing  round  'upon  (or  at)  them  is  an  act  mentioned  by 
Luke  also  (0,  10),  with  the  addition  of  the  strong  word  all.  But 
Mark  tells  what  feelings  were  expressed  b}''  this  act,  or  at  least  ac- 
companied it.     One  was  anger^  a  passion  belonging  to  our  original  con- 


MARK  3,  5.  6.  59 

stitution,  and  as  such  not  sinful  in  itself,  and  therefore  shared  by 
the  humanity  of  Christ,  in  whom  it  was  a  holy  indignation  or  intense 
displeasure  at  what  really  deserves  it,  unalloyed  by  that  excess  or  that 
malignity  which  renders  human  anger  almost  always  sinful.  The 
absence  of  the  quality  last  named  in  this  case  is  apparent  from  the 
other  feeling  mentioned,  that  of  grief  or  sorrow.  Grieved  icith  is  in 
Greek  a  compound  verb,  admitting  of  two  explanations,  one  of  which 
makes  the  particle  in  composition  refer  to  the  anger  previously  men- 
tioned, heing  grieved  (in  conjunction  or  at  the  same  time)  icith  that 
anger.  But  the  classical  usage  of  such  writers  as  Plato,  Theophrastus, 
Diodorus,  is  in  favour  of  referring"  the  particle  in  question,  not  to  the 
anger,  but  to  those  who  caused  it,  so  as  to  express  a  sympathetic 
sorrow.  Looking  round  with  anger  and  yet  grieving  (sympathizing) 
with  them.  In  the  very  act  of  condemning  their  sin,  he  pitied  the 
miserable  state  to  which  it  had  reduced  them.  The  specific  object  of 
this  sympathetic  grief  or  pity  was  the  hardness  of  their  heart,  includ- 
ing intellectual  stupidity  and  insensibility  of  feeling.  The  first  Greek 
word  is  less  exactly  rendered  bUndness  in  the  margin  of  our  Bible,  and 
in  the  text  M  Rom.  11,  25.  Eph.  4,  18.  But  the  figure,  although  not 
suggested  by  the  Greek  word,  is  expressive  of  two  things  which  it  de- 
notes, a  state  of  mental  and  spiritual  apathy  or  insensibility.  There  is 
here  no  mention  of  external  contact  (as  in  1,  31.  41),  nor  of  any  other 
order  or  command  than  that  to  stretch  out  the  hand,  which  could  only  \ 
be  obeyed  when  the  miracle  was  wrought,  and  is  therefore  not  required  | 
as  a  previous  condition.  This  is  often  and  justly  used  to  illustrate  the  i 
act  of  faith,  which  is  performed  in  obedience  to  divine  command  and  \ 
by  the  aid  of  the  same  power  which  requires  it.  Whole  (or  sound)  as  j 
the  other,  though  expunged  in  this  place  by  the  critics  as  a  mere  assim- 
ilation to  Matt.  12,  13  (compare  Luke  6.  10),  may  be  used  to  illustrate 
Mark's  laconic  phrase,  in  which  it  is  really  implied. 

6.  And  the  Pharisees  went  forth,  and  straightway 
took  counsel  with  the  Herodians  against  him,  how  thej 
might  destroy  him. 

One  of  the  most  important  circumstances  of  this  case,  for  the  sake 
of  which  it  was  perhaps  recorded  (see  above,  on  v.  1),  is  the  effect 
which  it  produced  upon  the  Pharisees  or  High- Church  Jewish  party, 
whose  religious  tenets  brought  them  into  constant  opposition  to  the 
Sadducees  or  latitudinarians  (see  above,  on  2,  18).  as  their  political  or 
national  exclusiveness  arra3'-ed  them  against  the  Herodians  or  followers 
of  Herod,  and  as  such  defenders  of  the  Roman  domination,  of  which 
the  Herods  were  the  instruments  and  agents.  Herod  the  Great, 
created  king  by  the  Romans,  and  enabled  by  their  aid  to  take  posses- 
sion of  his  kingdom,  was  devoted  to  their  service  both  from  interest 
and  inclination  ;  and  although  upon  his  death  his  dominions  were 
divided,  and  his  eldest  son  Archclaus  had  been  superseded  in  Judea  by 
Roman  procurators,  two  other  sons  of  Herod  were  still  reigning  (Luke 
3,  1),  Antipas  in  Galilee,  Samaria,  and  Perea,  and  Philip  in  Tracho- 


60  MARK  3,  6.  7. 

nitis  and  Iturea.  Even  in  Judea,  the  Herodian  interest  and  party  still 
existed,  as  the  most  extreme  political  antithesis  to  that  of  the  Phar- 
isees. It  is  therefore  a  clear  proof  of  growing  hatred  to  our  Saviour, 
that  these  opposite  extremes  should  now  begin  to  coalesce  for  his  de- 
struction, an  alliance  which  appears  to  have  continued  till  its  object  was 
accomplished  (see  below,  on  12, 13.)  Going  out  (from  the  synagogue) 
immediately,  as  soon  as  the  miracle  was  wrought,  and  therefore  in  full 
view  of  the  proof  which  it  afforded  of  our  Lord's  divine  legation ; 
a  conclusive  confirmation  of  that  hardness  and  judicial  blindness 
which  had  excited  his  own  grief  and  anger.  Tooh  counsel  is  a  phrase 
peculiar  to  Matthew  (12,  14.  22, 15.  27,  1.  7.  28, 12),  Mark's  equiva- 
lent to  which  is  made  counsel,  i.  e.  consultation  (see  IdcIow,  on  15,  1.) 
How  tJicy  migJit  destroy  Mm,  not  for  any  past  offences,  but  how  they 
might  take  advantage  of  his  words  or  acts  to  rid  them  of  so  dangerous 
an  enemy.  The  motives  of  this  concerted  opposition  were  no  doubt 
various,  religious,  political,  and  personal,  in  different  degrees  and  cases. 
That  it  should  have  been  deliberately  organized,  at  this  time,  out  of 
such  discordant  elements  and  in  the  face  of  such  conclusive  evidence, 
can  only  be  ascribed  to  the  infatuation  under  which  they  acted 
(Luke  6,  11.) 

7.  But  Jesus  withdrew  liimself  with  his  disciples  to 
the  sea  :  and  a  great  multitude  from  Galilee  followed 
him,  and  from  Judea. 

In  consequence  of  this  combination  and  the  dangers  which  arose 
from  it  (Matt.  12,  15),  our  Lord  withdrew  from  Capernaum  and  other 
towns  of  Galilee,  to  the  shores  of  the  lake,  where  he  would  be  less 
exposed  to  craft  or  violence,  and  better  able  to  escape  without  a 
miracle.  This  retreat  before  his  enemies  was  prompted,  not  by  fear, 
but  by  that  wnse  discretion  which  was  constantly  emploj^ed  in  the 
selection  and  the  use  of  the  necessary  means  for  the  promotion  of  the 
great  end  which  he  came  to  accomplish.  As  it  entered  into  the  divine 
plan  that  his  great  atoning  work  should  be  preceded  hy m  prophetic 
ministry  of  several  years'  duration,  the  design  of  which  was  to  indoc- 
trinate the  people  in  the  nature  of  his  kingdom,  to  prepare  the  way 
for  its  erection,  and  to  train  the  men  by  whom  it  should  be  organized, 
it  formed  no  small  part  of  his  work  to  check  and  regulate  the  progress 
of  events,  so  as  not  to  ])recipitatc  the  consummation,  but  secure  and 
complete  the  requisite  preparatory  process.  That  the  movement  here 
recorded  was  intended  to  elude  his  enemies,  whose  influence  was  great- 
est in  the  towns,  and  not  to  escape  the  concourse  of  the  people,  may 
be  seen  from  the  actual  result  as  Mark  describes  it.  So  far  was  the 
multitude  from  being  diminished  by  this  change  of  place,  that  it  seems 
to  have  reached  its  height  at  this  point,  where  the  histor}'-  pauses,  as  it 
were,  to  indicate  the  various  sources  of  the  living  stream  which  now 
continually  followed  him.  The  first  here  named  is  Galilee,  the  north- 
ern ])rovince  (see  above,  on  1,  14),  where  he  resided,  and  in  whirh, 
according  to  the  prophecy  (Matt.  4,  13-15),  his  ministiy  was  chiefly 


MARK  3,  7.  8.  61 

exercised.  Under  this  name  and  Judea  is  perhaps  included  the  whole 
country  west  of  Jordan,  or  the  terms  may  be  more  strictly  understood 
as  excluding  the  middle  tract,  Samaria,  the  inhabitants  of  which  had 
no  dealings  with  the  Jews  (John  4,  10),  and  may  have  been  unwilling 
to  unite  with  them  even  in  attending  on  the  new  religious  teacher. 

8.  And  from  Jerusalem,  and  from  Idnmea,  and  (from) 

beyond  Jordan ;   and  they  about  Tyre  and  Sidon,  a  great 

multitude,  when  tliey  had  heard  what  great  things  he 

did,  came  unto  him. 

Jerusalem  is  distinguished  from  Judea  (as  in  1,  5),  on  account  of  its 
importance  as  the  great  religious  cetitre  of  the  country  and  the  seat  of 
the  theocracy.  Idumea^  which  occurs  only  here  in  the  New  Testament, 
was  the  Greek  modification  of  the  Hebrew  Edom,  as  applied  to  the 
country  occupied  by  the  sons  of  Esau  (Gen.  25,  30.  36,  1),  on  the 
south-east  of  Palestine,  along  the  eastern  side  of  the  great  valley  ( Ara- 
bah)  which  extends  from  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  Red  Sea  (Akabah.) 
The  Edomites,  hereditary  enemies  of  Israel  (Ex.  15,  15.  Num.  20,  21. 
1  Sam.  14,  47),  were  subdued  by  David  (2  Sam.  8, 14),  but  during  the 
captivity  encroached  upon  the  Holy  Land  (Ezek.  36,5),  and  were  again 
conquered  and  incorporated  with  the  Jews  by  John  Hyrcanus,  one  of 
the  Maccabees  or  liasmonean  princes,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  3'ears  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  Idumea,  therefore,  was  a  sort  of 
border-land  between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  It  was  from  it  that 
the  Ilerod  family  derived  its  origin.  Beyond  Jordan^  called  by  the 
Greek  geographers  Perea^  a  name  derived  from  the  preposition  here 
used  (^nepau),  and  in  itself  indefinite,  though  limited  by  usage  to  that 
part  of  the  land  of  Israel  which  was  east  of  Jordan.  This,  as  well  as 
Idumea,  would  include  a  large  extent  of  frontier  territory,  where  the 
Jews  were  in  immediate  contact,  if  not  actually  mingled  with  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  next  phrase,  tJiose  aljout  Tyre  and 
Sidon.  These  were  the  two  famous  cities  of  Phenicia,  the  narrow  strip 
of  sea-coast  north  of  Palestine,  distinguished  in  the  ancient  world  for 
its  maritime  commerce.  Sidon  (or  Zidon)  was  the  more  ancient  (Gen. 
10,  19.  49,  13).  but  was  afterwards  eclij)sed  by  Tyre  (Josh.  19,  29.  Ez. 
27,  32.)  As  the  whole  importance  of  Phenicia  was  derived  from  these 
two  cities,  it  is  designated  by  their  joint  names  (Jer.  47,  4.  Joel  3,  4. 
Zech.  9,  2.  Matt.  11,  21.  Luke  10,  13.  Acts  12,  20.)  The  phrase  here 
used  may  denote  either  the  Phenicians,  or  the  Israelites  dwelling  on 
their  borders,  or  more  probably  both,  as  we  have  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  multitudes  which  followed  Jesus  were  composed  exclusively 
of  Jews.  That  the  reference  is  here  more  especially  to  the  heathen 
Phenicians  may  be  gathered,  with  some  degree  of  probability,  from  the 
structure  of  the  sentence,  which  appears  to  distinguish  between  two 
great  multitudes,  first  one  from  Galilee,  Judea,  Idumea,  and  Perea.  and 
then  one  composed  of  those  about  Tyie  and  Sidon,  who.  having  heard 
how  many  and  -what  great  things  (oVa)  he  teas  doing  (eTvolei)^  came  to 
him.     This  seems  to  imply  that  they  weie  more  lemote  or  beyond  the 


62  MARK   1,  8.  9.  10. 

limits  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  are  therefore  separately  mentioned  as  a 
great  multitude,  additional  to  that  described  in  the  preceding  clauses. 
This  is  the  fullest  statement  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  Gospels  as  to  the 
extent  of  our  Lord's  personal  influence  and  the  composition  of  the  mul- 
titudes who  followed  him.     (Compare  Luke  6,  17.) 

9.  And  he  spake  to  liis  disciples,  that  a  small  ship 
should  wait  on  him,  because  of  the  multitude,  lest  they 
should  throng  him. 

The  little  circumstance  here  mentioned,  which  would  naturally 
dwell  in  the  memory  of  an  eye  and  ear  witness,  adds  a  graphic  stroke 
to  the  picture  of  this  vast  assemblage.  So  great  was  the  concourse  on 
the  lake-shore  that  our  Saviour,  both  for  safety  and  convenience,  ordered 
a  vessel  to  be  kept  in  readiness,  to  which  ho  might  retire  either  to  es- 
cape the  throng  or  as  a  more  commodious  place  from  which  to  address 
them,  as  we  know  that  he  had  sometimes  done  before  (Luke  5,  3.)  A 
small  slii})^  or  rather  hoat.  the  Greek  diminutive  (jiKoiapLov)  denoting 
something  smaller  even  than  the  fishing  boats  (jiKoia)  so  often  men- 
tioned in  the  Gospels  (see  above,  on  1,  20.)  He  sjioTce  to  his  disciples, 
perhaps  in  the  form  of  a  request,  but  with  the  force  of  a  command. 
Jlis  disciples,  those  in  constant  and  immediate  attendance  on  his  person 
(see  above,  on  2,  23.)  Wait  on  Mm,  literally  stick  close  (or  adhere) 
to  him,  elsewhere  applied  to  personal  attendance  on  another  (Acts  8, 
13.  10,  7)  or  on  duty  (Acts  1,  14.  2,  42.  6,  4.)  It  here  means  that  it 
should  be  constantly  within  reach  and  accessible.  The  multitude,  not 
the  word  twice  used  above  (in  vs.  7.  8),  but  one  which  answers  more 
exactly  to  the  English  croicd,  as  implying  not  mere  numbers,  but  con- 
fusion and  strong  pressure,  which  is  there  expressed  distinctly  in  the 
last  clause,  lest  they  sliould  (or  that  they  might  not)  tlirong  him,  crowd 
or  press  upon  him.  a  verb  elsewhere  used  in  a  figurative  sense  for  the 
pressure  of  distress  or  prevention  (e.  g.  1  Th.  3,  4.  2  Th.  1,  6.  7.)  This 
was  not  a  mere  provision  for  his  ease  or  comfort,  but  a  necessary  means 
to  the  performance  of  the  work  in  which  he  was  engaged. 

10.  For  he   had   healed  many  ;  insomuch  that  they 

pressed  upon   him  for  to  touch  him,  as  many   as  had 

phigues. 

The  pressure  mentioned  in  the  last  verse  was  not  merely  that  which 
is  unavoidable  in  all  crowds,  but  an  extraordinary  movement  caused 
by  his  miraculous  performances.  He  had  healed,  or  more  exactly,  as 
the  verb  is  not  in  the  pluperfect  but  the  aorist,  he  healed,  at  that  time, 
or,  as  we  should  say,  was  healing.  Many,  i.  e.  no  doubt  all  who 
sought  his  aid  (see  above,  on  34.)  So  that,  in  their  eagerness  to  reach 
him  and  partake  of  his  miraculous  gifts,  they  pressed  upon  him,  literally, 
fell  on  (or  against  hiui).  a  strong  but  natural  expression  for  the  move- 
ment Ikm'c  described.  'J'hcir  desire  to  touch  him  was  not  superstitious, 
but  expressive  of  their  faith  in  his  capacity  to  heal  theui,  with  perhaps 


MARK  3,  10.  11.  12.  13.  63 

too  limited  a  view  of  this  capacity  as  only  to  be  exercised  by  actual 
contact.  Plagues  (compare  Luke  6,  19),  literally  scourges,  i.  e.  divine 
chastisements.  The  English  word  itself  means  originally  stripes  or 
strokes.  Here  again  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  all  who  were  dis- 
eased experienced  his  healing  power. 

11.  And  unclean  spirits,  when  tliey  sawhim,  fell  down 
before  him,  and  cried,  saying,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God. 

12.  And  he  straitly  charged  them,  that  thej  should 
not  make  him  known. 

On  this  as  on  other  like  occasions  (see  above,  1,  24.  34),  particular 
attention  must  have  been  attracted  by  the  expulsion  of  evil  spirits,  who 
continued  to  bear  testimony  to  his  person,  whenever  or  as  soon  as  they 
beheld  him,  falhng  down  before  him  as  an  act  of  homage,  and  proclaim- 
ing him  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Here  too  we  find  him  checking  this 
presumption,  not  only  because  he  was  dishonored  by  their  testimony, 
but  tJiat  tliey  might  not  malie  Mm  manifest,  i.  e.  reveal  his  character 
and  office  prematurely  and  precipitatel)^,  so  as  to  defeat  his  purpose, 
which  required  a  more  deliberate  and  gradual  disclosure.  (Sec  above, 
on  1,  34.)  Here  again  the  intimate  possession  of  the  man  by  the  in- 
dwelling demon  is  denoted  by  the  promiscuous  ascription  of  the  acts 
described  to  both,  as  performed  by  the  one  under  the  extraordinary 
influence  of  the  other.  This  may  also  serve  to  explain  Matthew's 
somewhat  difierent  statement  (12,  16),  that  he  gave  this  charge  and 
prohibition  to  all  whom  he  healed,  which  may  be  literally  true  (see 
above,  on  1,  43),  and  Mark  ma}'^  simply  have  selected  one  class  out  of 
many  who  were  thus  forbidden.  While  the  sick  in  general  were  re- 
quired not  to  make  him  known  by  giving  undue  or  premature  publicity 
to  what  they  had  experienced,  a  particular  restriction  was  imposed 
upon  the  more  explicit  testimony  borne  to  his  Messiahship  by  evil 
spirits. 

13.  And  he  goeth  up  into  a  mountain,  and  calleth 
(unto  him)  wliom  he  would :  and  they  came  unto  him. 

It  formed,  as  we  have  seen  (on  1, 16),  no  part  of  our  Lord's  person^ 
al  errand  upon  earth  to  reorganize  the  Church,  as  this  change  was  to 
rest  upon  his  own  atoning  death  as  its  foun(]ation.  For  the  same  rea- 
son, he  did  not  develope  the  whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine,  but 
left  both  these  tasks  to  be  accomplished  after  his  departure,  yet  pre- 
paring the  way  for  both,  by  teaching  the  true  nature  of  his  kingdom, 
and  b}'-  training  those  who  should  complete  the  Church,  both  as  to  its 
organization  and  its  creed.  This  preparatory  process  was  a  very  grad- 
ual one,  as  we  learn  from  the  occasional  and  incidental  statements  of 
the  history,  which  nowhere  gives  us  a  connected  and  complete  account 
of  it.  The  first  step  which  we  can  ti-ace  is  his  reception  of  two  of 
John's  disciples,  first  as  guests  or  visitors,  and  then  no  doubt  as  friends 


64  MARK  3,  13. 

and  pupils,  but  as  yet  without  requiring  their  continual  attendance  on 
his  person  (see  John  1,  35-40.)  One  of  these  two  we  know  to  have 
been  Andrew  (ib.  41),  and  the  other  is  commonly  believed  to  have 
been  John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  who  never  names  himself  in  his  own 
gospel.  In  pursuance  of  the  Saviour's  plan,  each  of  these  two  intro- 
duced a  brother  (Simon  and  James.)  A  tifth,  directly  called  by  Christ 
himself,  was  Philip  (John  1,  44),  who  in  his  turn  brought  Nathanael, 
recognized  by  Jesus  as  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  there  was  no  guile 
(John  1,  48),  that  is  to  say.  a  genuine,  sincere  adherent  of  the  old  the- 
ocracy, according  to  its  true  design  and  import  as  a  preparation  for 
Messiah's  reign,  and  therefore  ready  to  acknowledge  him- as  soon  as  he 
should  give  some  proof  of  his  Messiahshij?  (John  1,  49.  50.)  A  seventh, 
called  immediately  by  Christ  himself,  was  Levi  or  Matthew  (see  above, 
on  2, 14. 15.)  As  the  history  of  all  these  calls  is  only  incidental,  we 
may  argue  by  analogy  from  one  to  the  other,  and  as  those  first  men- 
tioned seem  to  have  continued  in  their  former  occupations  some  time 
after  their  first  introduction  to  their  Master,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the 
same  happened  in  the  other  cases,  though  the  writer's  plan  did  not  re- 
quire it  to  be  expressly  mentioned.  We  have  then  two  successive  and 
distinct  steps  in  the  process  of  preparing  men  to  organize  the  Church ; 
first  the  personal  vocation  of  at  least  seven  persons  into  Christ's  soci- 
ety, as  friends  and  pupils  ;  then  a  second  call  to  constant  personal  at- 
tendance. The  third  step  is  that  recorded  here  by  IMark,  to  wit,  the 
more  formal  designation  of  twelve  persons  to  the  Apostolic  office.  As 
we  know  that  at  least  half  of  these  had  been  previously  called,  and  at 
least  one  fourth  of  them  at  two  distinct  times,  it  is  highly  probable 
that  a  like  intimation  had  been  given  to  the  remaining  .six  or  seven. 
It  would  then  be  true  of  all,  as  it  certainly  is  of  those  referred  to,  that 
the  choice  or  calling  here  described  did  not  take  them  b3''  surprise,  but 
merely  carried  out  a  purpose  previously  made  known  to  them.  Mark 
connects  this  designation  of  the  twelve  with  the  immense  concourse 
just  described,  but  only  by  juxtaposition,  without  an}^  express  specifi- 
cation of  time.  Luke  (G,  12)  docs  indicate  the  time,  but  very  vaguely 
(in  these  days),  and  Matthew  omits  all  mention  of  the  twelve  until  he 
comes  to  their  actual  entrance  on  their  work  (Matt.  10, 1),  which  is  a 
fourth  stage  in  this  gradual  preparatory  process.  What  is  here  de- 
scribed is  neither  the  original  vocation  of  the  individual  Apostles,  nor 
their  final  going  forth  in  that  capacit}^,  but  the  intermediate  step  of 
publicly  embodying  or  organizing  those  who  had  been  previously  chosen 
one  by  one,  or  two  by  two,  that  they  might  now,  as  a  collective  body, 
be  prepared  for  active  service.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  entirely  con- 
sistent with  Luke's  statement  that  he  chose  them  now  (Luke  6,  13), 
for  this  was  not  an  act  that  could  not  be  repeated,  and  with  Mark's, 
that  he  called  to  Mm  loliom  Jie  icould^  which  only  excludes  self-choice 
and  popular  election,  but  not  a  previous  designation  on  his  own  part. 
And  they  went  aicay  to  him,  i.  e.  from  the  promiscuous  assembly  out 
of  which  he  called  them.  Both  evangelists  (see  Luke  G,  12)  represent 
this  scene  as  taking  place  upon  a  mountain,  or  rather  the  mountain, 
definitely  so  called  because  afterwards  universall}'^  familiar  for  this  very 


MARK  3,  13.  14.  15.  65 

reason,  and  as  having  given  name  to  the  "  Sermon  on  the  Mount." 
Another  explanation  of  this  definite  expression,  preferred  by  some  in- 
terpreters, is  that  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  gospels  it  denotes  not  a 
single  mountain  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  the  highlands  upon  either 
side  of  Jordan,  as  distinguished  from  the  lowlands  on  the  sea-coast. 

14.  And  lie  ordained  twelve,  that  thev  slionld  be  with 
him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach. 

Ordained  is  in  Greek  not  a  technical  expression,  but  a  very  com- 
mon verb,  meaning  made^  i.  e,  out  of  the  whole  number  present,  or,  as 
some  think,  out  of  the  selected  number  whom  he  called  to  him,  he  con- 
stituted or  created  twelve  to  be  a  body  by  themselves  ;  for  what  pur- 
pose, and  with  what  official  functions,  is  expressed  in  the  remainder 
of  the  verse.  That  they  might  he  iDith  him,  as  constant  personal  at- 
tendants, and  as  learners,  to  be  trained  for  their  subsequent  work,  both 
by  precept  and  example.  And  that  he  might  send  them  out  to  lyreacli, 
proclaim,  announce,  or  herald,  the  approach  of  the  IMessiah's  kingdom, 
thus  relieving  and  assisting  him,  as  he  had  first  assisted  and  then  su- 
perseded John  the  Baptist.  It  has  been  observed  that  Mark  uses 
neither  of  the  two  official  titles  corresponding  to  the  two  designs  here 
stated,  though  he  does  employ  the  verb  from  which  the  second  is  de- 
rived. The  twelve  were  to  be  with  him  as  discijAes  (fiadrjTcu,  from 
fxavddvco,  to  learn),  and  then  to  go  out  from  him  as  apostles  (dnoa-ToXoL, 
from  dnoa-TeWco,  to  send  forth.)  This  title,  though  omitted  here,  was 
not  a  later  designation,  but  one  given  at  the  time  by  Christ  himself 
(Luke  6, 13.)  It  is  a  curious  fact,  showing  that  the  inspiration  of  the 
sacred  writers  did  not  destroy  their  individuality  of  style  and  manner, 
that  while  the  word  disciple  is  used  freely  and  frequently  in  all  the 
gospels,  apostle  occurs  only  once  in  Matthew  (10,  2),  once  in  Mark  (G, 
30),  and  not  at  all  in  John,  except  in  the  original  and  wide  sense  of  a 
messenger  (13,  IG) ;  while  Luke  employs  it  six  times  in  his  gospel, 
and  thirty  times  in  Acts. 

15.  And  to  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and  to  cast 
out  devils. 

The  construction  is  continued  from  the  verse  preceding,  to  preach 
and  to  have  being  both  dependent  on  the  verb  send  forth.  Authority, 
delegated  power,  to  work  miracles  of  healing,  and  especially  of  dispos- 
session, which  are  singled  out  and  separately  mentioned,  as  in  1,  32. 
34,  and  for  the  reason  there  explained.  This  miraculous  power  is  not 
to  be  regarded  as  an  independent  and  co-ordinate  function  of  the  apos- 
tolic office,  but  as  subsidiary  to  the  main  one  of  preaching  or  pro- 
claiming the  INIessiah's  kingdom,  both  as  an  attestation  of  their  message, 
and  as  a  means  of  arousing  attention  and  securing  its  reception.  As 
the  twelve  were  to  relieve  their  Master  in  his  work  of  proclamation,  so 
they  were  to  be  provided  with  the  same  means  of  authenticating  and 
enforcing  it  which  he  employed  himself,  but  only  us  his  delegates  or 


66  MARK  3,  15.  16. 

representatives,  who  spoke  and  acted  always  in  his  name,  and  by  his 
sovereign  authority. 

16.  And  Simon  lie  snrnamed  Peter. 

We  have  four  independent  lists  of  the  Apostles  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, differing  chiefly  in  the  order  of  the  names,  but  also  as  to  several 
of  the  names  themselves.  One  of  these  catalogues  is  given  here  by 
INlark,  one  by  Matthew  (10,  2-1),  and  the  remaining  two  by  Luke 
(G,  14—10.  Acts  1,  13.)  Bengel  was  probably  the  first  to  observe  that 
although  the  arrangement  of  the  names  is  so  unlike  in  these  four  docu- 
ments, the  variation  is  confined  to  certain  limits,  as  the  twelve  may  be 
divided  into  three  quaternions,  which  are  never  interchanged,  and  the 
leading  names  of  which  are  the  same  in  all.  Thus  Peter  is  invariably 
the  first,  Phihp  the  fifth,  James  the  ninth,  and  Iscariot  the  last,  except 
in  Acts,  where  his  name  is  omitted  on  account  of  his  apostasy  and 
death.  Simon  he  snrnamed  (literally,  he  imposed  on  Simon  the  name) 
Peter.  This  has  been  represented  as  at  variance  with  the  statement 
made  by  John  (1,  43),  that  the  change  of  name  was  made  at  Simon's 
first  introduction  to  the  Saviour.  But  Mark  does  not  say  when  the 
new  name  was  imposed,  and  only  mentions  it  in  order  to  give  both 
the  names  by  which  the  great  xVpostle  was  familiarly  known.  Besides, 
there  is  no  improbability  in  the  supposition  that  the  words  were  re- 
peated upon  this,  as  they  were  upon  a  subsequent  occasion  (Matthew 
16, 18.)  The  name  itself  does  not  denote  constancy  or  firmness,  which 
were  not  peculiar  traits  of  Peter's  character,  but  strength  and  boldness, 
or  the  founding  of  the  church  upon  a  rock,  as  taught  in  the  last  cited 
words  of  Matthew.  The  new  name  did  not  wholly  sujDersede  the  old 
one,  as  in  the  case  of  Saul  and  Paul  (Acts  13,  9)  ;  for  we  find  the  lat- 
ter still  emplojxd  by  Christ  himself  (see  below,  14,  37,  and  compare 
Matt.  16,  16.  17.  17,  25.  Luke  22,  31.  John  21,  16.  17),  as  well  as  by 
the  other  Apostles  (Luke  24,  34.  Acts  15,  14.)  Throughout  the  gos- 
pel of  John  (6,  8.  68,  &c.)  and  in  the  opening  words  of  Peter's  second 
epistle,  both  names  are  combined.  The  place  assigned  to  Peter,  in  all 
the  lists  of  the  Apostles,  is  not  fortuitous,  nor  founded  simply  on  his 
being  one  of  those  first  called  ;  for  Andrew  then  would  take  prece- 
dence of  him.  That  it  does  not,  on  the  other  hand,  imply  a  permanent 
superiority  of  raulc  or  office  may  be  argued  from  the  fact  that  no  such 
primacy  is  anywhere  ascribed  to  him ;  that  he  was  freijuently  betrayed 
into  the  gravest  errors,  both  of  judgment  and  of  practice,  and  repeat- 
edly rebuked  with  great  severity  by  Christ  himself;  and  lastly,  that 
he  alone  of  the  eleven  went  so  fiir  as  to  deny  his  Master,  and  continued 
under  the  reproach  of  that  apostasy  until  the  risen  Saviour  conde- 
scended to  restore  him  (John  21,  15-17.)  His  true  historical  position 
is  that  of  spokesman  to  the  college  of  Apostles,  like  the  foreman  of  a 
jury  or  the  chairman  of  a  large  conmiittee.  This  place  was  not  as- 
signed him  for  his  own  distinction,  but  for  the  convenience  of  his  Mas- 
ter and  his  brethren,  in  whose  name  and  behalf  he  often  speaks,  and 
is  addressed  in  turn.     He  was  qualified  for  the  positiouj  not  by  any 


MARK  3,  16.  17.  67 

moral  superiority,  but  by  his  forwardness  of  speecli  and  action,  often 
accompanied  by  rashness  and  inconstancy  of  temper.  Even  after  the 
effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  corrected  and  subdued  these  consti- 
tutional infirmities,  we  find  some  trace  of  them  in  Peter's  course  at 
Antioch,  reproved  by  Paul,  and  recorded  in  Gal.  2,  11-14. 

17.  And  James  tlie  (son)  of  Zeueclee,  and  Jolni  the 

brother  of  James,    and  he  snrnamed  them  Boanerges, 

which  is,  The  sons  of  thunder. 

James  and  John  are  accusatives  in  Greek,  but  without  any  verb  to 
govern  them,  unless  ordained  or  made  be  repeated  from  v.  14 ;  but  the 
sense  is  not  obscured  by  this  interrupted  and  irregular  construction. 
The  persons  meant  are  those  whose  call  has  been  already  mentioned 
in  1,  19.  20.  We  here  learn  the  name  of  their  father,  whom  they  then 
left  with  the  hired  men  in  the  boat.  John  is  described  as  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  and  James  as  the  brother  of  John,  apart  from  whom  he  is 
never  mentioned.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  as  James  was  the  first 
and  John  the  last  of  the  Apostles  who  died.  James  was  also  the  first 
martyr  of  the  apostohc  body  (see  Acts  12,  2.)  These  illustrious 
brothers  ]\Iark  puts  next  to  Peter,  whose  own  brother  Andrew  is 
thereby  transferred  to  the  fourth  place ;  whereas  Matthew  (10,  2) 
names  the  two  pairs  of  brothers  in  the  order  of  their  previous  vocation 
as  recorded  in  1,  16.  19.  Luke  adopts  the  same  arrangement  in  his 
gospel  (6,  14),  but  in  Acts  (1,  13)  agrees  with  Mark's.  Surnamed^ 
as  in  V.  16,  literally,  imposed  names  iqjon  them^  which  implies  a  magis- 
terial authority.  The  name  itself  {Boanerges)  is  no  doubt  a  double 
modification  (Greek  and  Aramaic)  of  some  Hebrew  phrase  which  can- 
not now  be  certainly  identified,  but  which  is  here  translated  by  Mark 
himself.  Sons  of  thunder  has  been  commonly  explained  as  an  oriental 
figure  for  powerful  preachers,  and  the  word  Boanerges  has  become 
proverbial  in  this  sense,  even  as  a  singular,  whereas  it  is  determined  to 
be  plural  both  by  the  Greek  version  and  by  the  preceding  plural  noun 
{names).  It  has  been  objected  that  these  brother-fishermen  could 
scarcely  be  distinguished  for  their  eloquence  when  called  to  be  apos- 
tles ;  but  the  name  might  be  prophetic,  as  it  was  in  Peter's  case.  A 
stronger  argument  against  this  explanation  is  that  a  title  so  honourable 
and  so  closely  connected  with  their  office,  would  most  probably  have 
been  perpetuated,  or  at  least  repeated  in  their  history.  A  third  objec- 
tion, that  the  gentle  John  could  not  have  been  a  son  of  thunder,  rests 
upon  a  widespread  but  erroneous  notion  as  to  this  Apostle's  character 
and  temper.  Because  he  is  called  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  and 
because  he  dwells  in  his  first  epistle  on  the  love  of  God  as  his  favourite 
theme,  he  has  been  generally  painted  and  described  in  words  as  distin- 
guished by  a  feminine  softness,  which  is  sometimes  pushed  so  far  as  to 
be  quite  disgusting.  It  is  well  known,  however,  that  the  most  intense 
affection  is  compatible  with  an  ardent  temper  and  ambitious  spirit,  of 
both  which  qualities  we  find  some  traces  in  the  words  and  actions  of 
these  apostolical  brothers.     (See  below,  on  10,  35-40,  and  compare 


68  MARK  3,  17.  18. 

Luke  9.  49-5G.)  Henco  some  suppose  that  they" were  called  sons  of 
thunder  for  this  very  reason,  or  with  special  reference  to  their  proposi- 
tion in  Luke  9,  54.  But  the  name,  whatever  may  have  been  its  Ara- 
maic form,  has  reference  to  the  noise  of  thunder,  not  to  lightning  or  to 
"fire  from  heaven."  Besides,  the  name,  as  thus  explained,  would  be 
one  of  reproach,  and  as  such  most  unlikely  to  be  thus  embalmed  in 
history.  In  this  uncertainty,  it  seems  best  to  adhere  to  what  is  cer- 
tainly revealed,  to  wit,  that  these  two  favourite  disciples,  who,  with 
Peter,  were  admitted  to  a  more  confidential  intimacy  with  their  Lord, 
received  from  him,  on  some  occasion  now  unknown,  the  striking  but 
mysterious  appellation,  Sons  of  Thunder. 

18.  And  Andrew  and  Philip,  and  Bartholomew  and 

Matthew,  and  Thomas  and  James  the  (son)  of  Alphens, 

and  Thaddens  and  Simon  the  Canaanite. 

One  observable  distinction  between  Mark's  and  Matthew's  lists  of 
the  Apostles  is,  that  the  latter  arranges  them  in  pairs  throughout,  while 
the  former  enumerates  them  singly,  and  being  inserted  between  every 
two  names.  Such  points  of  difference,  however  unimportant  in  them- 
selves, are  not  without  their  value  as  proofs  of  distinct  and  independent 
origin,  excluding  the  hypothesis  of  mere  transcription  or  abridgment. 
AndreiD  and  PMli2y  are  old  Greek  names,  the  former  bein<?  found  in 
Herodotus,  and  the  latter  everywhere  in  ancient  history.  These  Apos- 
tles probably  had  Hebrew  names  besides,  which  had  been  gradually 
superseded  by  the  Greek  ones.  It  was  very  common  for  the  Jews  of 
that  age  to  have  double  names,  one  native  and  one  foreign.  (Compare 
Acts  1,  22.  9,  36.  12,  12.  13, 1.  9.)  Andrew  and  Philip  were  among 
the  earliest  of  Christ's  disciples,  Andrew  having  previously  followed 
John  the  Baptist,  by  whom  he  was  led  to  Jesus  as  the  lamb  of  God, 
and  not  only  followed  him,  but  brought  his  brother  Simon  (Peter)  to 
him  (John,  1.41-43.)  Phihp  was  called  by  Christ  himself  the' next 
day,  as  he  was  about  to  remove  from  Judea  into  Galilee.  Philip, 
though  he  seems  to  have  been  called  in  Judea,  was  a  Galilean  and  a 
townsman  of  Andrew  and  Peter  (John  1,  44.  45.)  lie  was  himself  the 
introducer  of  Nathanael.  upon  whom  our  Lord  pronounced  so  high  a 
commendation  (John  1,  48),  but  who  never  afterwards  appears  by  that 
name  until  after  the  resurrection,  when  we  find  him  in  company  with 
four,  and  probably  with  six  of  the  Apostles  (John  21,  2.)  This  has  led 
to  the  not  improbable  conclusion  that  Nathanael  was  the  person  called 
BartholomeiD^  in  all  the  lists  of  the  Apostles,  and  in  three  of  them 
placed  next  to  Philip  (compare  Matt.  10,  3.  Luke  G,  14),  while  the 
fourth  only  introduces  Thomas  between  them  (Acts  1,  13.)  Nathanael 
was  a  resident  of  Cana  in  Galilee,  the  scene  of  Christ's  first  miracle 
(John  2, 1.  4,  46.  21,  2.)  Matthew^  whose  previous  vocation  is  recorded 
in  2,  14.  (Luke  5,  27),  where  he  is  called  Levi;  but  he  calls  himself 
Matthew,  in  describing  that  event,  and  in  his  list  of  the  Apostles  (10,  3) 
adds  the  2^fil>lica?i^  omitted  by  the  others,  llionms  was  also  called 
Didymus,  the  two  names  being  Aramaic  and  Greek  synonyms,  both 


MARK   3,  18.  19.  69 

meaning  a  twin.  Besides  the  lists  of  the  Apostles,  Thomas  is  named 
eight  times  in  the  Gospel  of  John  (11,16.  14,5.  20,24-29.  21,2.) 
James  the  son  of  AI])lieus^  2i&  the  elh'psis  is  no  doubt  to  be  supplied. 
The  latter  seems  to  be  a  Greek  modification  of  an  Aramaic  name,  of 
which  Clo^jas  (John  19,  25),  is  supposed  to  be  another  form.  Now,  as 
Clopas  was  the  husband  of  the  Virgin  Mary's  sister  (see  below,  on  15, 40), 
his  son  would  be  the  cousin  of  our  Lord,  and  might,  according  to  a  com- 
mon Hebrew  idiom,  be  called  his  brother.  (See  below,  on  6,  3,  and  com- 
pare Gal.  1, 19.)  Thaddeus  occurs  only  here  and  in  Matt.  10,  3,  where 
it  is  given  as  the  surname  of  Lebheus^  a  name  on!)'-  mentioned  there. 
But  as  these  evangelists  omit  the  n-AVna  o?  Judas  {not  Iscariot.  John 
14,  22),  which  is  given  b}''  Luke  (6,  16.  Acts  1, 13),  it  seems  to  follow 
that  this  Judas,  Thaddeus,  and  Lebbeus  were  one  and  the  same  person. 
Some  suppose  the  last  two  names  to  be  synonymous,  because  derived 
from  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  words,  meaning  lieai^t  and  hreast ;  but  this 
is  doubtful.  Luke  describes  him  in  both  places  as  tlie  (son)  of  James ^ 
if  the  ellipsis  be  supplied  as  in  the  case  Qi  James  the  (son)  of  Alj^hevs, 
or  the  (Ijrother)  of  James,  as  most  interpreters  explain  it  and  refer  it 
to  the  James  just  mentioned.  Judas  may  then  be  identified  with  Jude, 
the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  the  author  of  the  short  epistle  near  the 
end  of  the  New  Testament  canon  (see  below,  on  6,  3.  and  compare 
Jude,  V.  1.)  Simon  the  Canaanite,  not  an  inhabitant  of  Canaan,  or  of 
Cana,  both  which  would  be  written  otherwise  in  Greek,  but  a  Zealot, 
as  it  is  explained  by  Luke  (6,  15.  Acts  1, 13),  and  as  the  name  itself, 
according  to  its  Hebrew  etymology,  would  signify.  It  may  be  descrip- 
tive of  his  personal  character  and  temper,  but  much  more  probably  of 
his  connection  with  the  sect  or  party  of  the  Zealots,  as  fanatical  adher- 
ents to  the  Jewish  institutions  and  opponents  of  all  compromise  with 
heathenism,  who  assumed  the  right  of  executing  summary  justice  after 
the  examj)le  of  Phineas  (Numb.  25,  7.  Ps.  106,  30),  and  by  their  san- 
guinary excesses  caused  or  hastened  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  To 
this  party,  of  which  traces  may  be  elsewhere  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (see  below,  on  15,  7,  and  compare  Acts  23,  12).  Simon  may 
have  been  attached  before  he  was  named  as  an  apostle.  The  juxtapo- 
sition of  his  name  with  those  of  James  and  Jude  (see  Luke,  6, 15.  Acts 
1, 13),  exhibits  a  coincidence  with  6,  3,  which  can  hardly  be  fortuitous, 
and  naturally  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  this  Simon  was  also  one  of 
our  Lord's  brethren.    (See  below,  on  6,  3.) 

19.  And  Judas  Iscariot,  wliicli  also  betrayed   him  : 

and  they  went  into  an  house. 

Iscariot  has  been  variously  explained  as  an  appellative,  but 
is  now  commonly  agreed  to  be  a  local  name,  denoting  man  of 
Kerioth,  as  the  similar  form  Istodos,  used  by  Josephus,  means  a 
man  of  Tol).  As  Kerioth  was  a  town  of  Judah  (Josh.  15,  25), 
Judas  is  the  only^  one  of  the  Apostles  whom  we  have  any  reason 
to  regard  as  not  a  Galilean.  Also,  i.  e.  besides  being  an  Apostle, 
or  although  he  was  one^wEich  was  a  fearful  aggravation  of  his  guilt. 


70  MARKS,  19.  20. 

(See  below,  on  14,  43,  and  compare  Acts  1,  17.  25.)  Betrayed^ 
though  necessarily  implied,  is  not  the  exact  import  of  the  verb,  which 
simply  means  to  give  up  or  deliver  into  the  power  of  another,  by  judi- 
cial process  (Matt.  5.  25.  18,  34,)  or  by  recommendation  to  his  favour. 
(Acts  14,  2G.  15,  40.)  But  its  constant  application  to  the  act  of  Judas 
in  betraying  Christ,  has  given  it  a  secondary  sense  equivalent  to  the 
stronger  terms  emploj^ed  by  Luke  (hetratjer^  traitor  J)  The  choice  of 
this  man  to  be  one  of  the  immediate  followers  of  Christ,  with  perfect 
knowledge  of  his  character  and  foresight  of  his  treason  (John  6,  64.  70, 
71),  is  undoubtedly  surprising,  and  at  variance  with  the  course  which 
human  wisdom  would  have  marked  out.  But  the  foolishness  of  God 
is  wiser  than  men  (1  Cor.  1,  25),  and  it  may  have  been  a  part  of  the 
divine  plan  to  illustrate  by  the  history  of  Judas  the  sovereignty  of  God 
in  choosing  even  his  most  honoured  instruments,  without  regard  to  any 
merit  of  their  own,  as  well  as  to  forewarn  the  church  that  absolute 
purity,  although  to  be  desired  and  aimed  at,  cannot  be  expected  even  in 
her  highest  places  during  her  militant  condition,  or  at  least  to  guard 
her  against  terror  and  despair,  when  such  defections  do  occur,  by  con- 
stantly reminding  her  that  of  the  twelve  whom  Christ  selected  to  be 
with  him  and  to  go  out  from  him  (see  above,  on  v.  14),  one  was  de- 
clared by  himself  to  be  a  "  devil."  and'a  "  son  of  perdition."  (John  6,  70. 
17, 12.)  And  tliey  went  into  an  Jioiise^  would  be  a  ver}'-  unimportant 
circumstance  in  tliis  connection,  and  the  true  sense  is  most  probably 
that  given  in  the  margin,  and  long  before  by  Wiclif,  tliey  came  Tioriu.,  i. 
e.  returned  to  Capernaum  again,  as  their  head-quarters  and  the  centre 
of  their  operations.  See  above,  on  1,  21.  2,  1,  where  the  same  Greek 
phrase  (et?  oXkov)  means  at  liome.  By  noting  these  departures  and 
returns  of  Christ  to  one  fixed  point,  it  will  be  seen  that  he  was  con- 
stantly engaged  in  a  methodical  survey  and  visitation  of  the  country, 
or  at  least  of  Galilee.     (See  above,  on  1,  14.  39.) 

20.  And  the  multitude  cometli  together  again,  so  that 
they  could  not  so  much  as  eat  bread. 

As  on  his  previous  return  to  his  own  city  (see  above,  on  2,  1),  the 
concourse  still  continued,  or  was  immediately  renewed.  The  greatness 
and  pressure  of  the  crowd  are  here  described  in  terms  still  stronger 
than  before,  and  bearing  equally  the  impress  of  a  vivid  per.sonal  recol- 
lection, perhaps  that  of  Peter.  As  it  was  there  said  (2,  2)  that  they 
filled  the  house  till  there  was  no  room  even  at  the  door,  so  here  we 
read  of  a  throng  so  vast  and  constant  that  they  (i.  e.  Jesus  and  his 
company)  loere  not  even  (fj-rjre)  aide  to  eat  hread,  a  common  idiomatic 
phra.se  for  taking  food,  especially  appropriate  where  this  consisted 
chiefly  of  bread.  The  meaning  is,  not  that  they  did  not  eat  at  all,  but 
that  their  regular  repasts  were  interrupted,  and  the  arrangements  of 
the  household  thrown  into  confusion,  by  the  constant  presence  of  a 
fluctuating  multitude,  coming  and  going  all  day  long.  (Compare  Acts 
27,  21.  33.)     This  shows  that  the  general  excitement  of  the  public 


MARK  3,  20.  21.  71 

mind,  occasioned  by  Christ's  miracles  and  teaching,  had  not  yet  reached 
its  height,  or  at  least  had  not  begun  to  subside. 

21.  And  when  liis  friends  heard  (of  it),  tliey  went  ont 
to  lay  hold  on  him  :  for  they  said,  He  is  beside  himself. 

Another  trace  of  vivid  recollection,  on  the  part  of  an  eye-witness, 
may  be  found  in  Mark's  exclusive  statement  of  -^the  way  in  which  the 
Saviour's  growing  popularity  affected  some  of  those  connected  with 
him.  This  interesting  statement  is  extremely  brief  and  the  meaning 
of  its  terms  disputed.  The  common  version  of  the  first  clause,  Ms 
friends  (margin,  or  hinsmen)  is  a  conjectural  but  probably  correct 
interpretation  of  a  phrase  (^cA  nap'  avrov)  which  literally  means  those 
from  Mm  (ov  from  icith  Jiim.)  Some  explain  this  as  meaning  those 
about  him^  i.  e.  his  disciples  or  the  multitude  ;  but  this  confounds  the 
Greek  phrase  with  another  altogether  different  (^ol  nepl  avrov)  which 
occurs  in  the  next  chapter  (see  below,  on  4,  10.  and  compare  9,  14.) 
Besides,  why  should  those  about  him  go  out  to  him  ?  Another  mean- 
ing, more  agreeable  to  usage,  is  that  of  sent  ly  {coming  from)  Mm  (as 
in  14,  43  below) ;  but  this  would  be  a  message  to  himself  and  a  com- 
mand to  seize  himself  The  only  other  sense  that  can  be  reconciled  at 
once  with  usage  and  the  context  is  that  of  belonging  to,  which,  al- 
though rare,  is  not  without  example  in  the  Greek  of  Xenophon,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  New  Testament.  For  an  instance  in  the  book  before 
us,  see  below,  on  5,  26,  to  which  some  add  Luke  10,  7 ;  but  the  mean- 
ing there  is  rather,  what  proceeds  from  (or  is  furnished  by)  them. 
Both  senses  may,  however,  be  reduced  to  one  original  idea,  that  of 
coming  from,  which  is  appropriate  both  to  gifts  and  to  extraction  or 
descent,  from  which  it  might  be  readily  transferred  to  kindred  or  re- 
lationship in  general,  thus  confirming  the  correctness  of  the  marginal 
translation  in  the  English  Bible.  The  same  essential  meaning  may 
be  gained,  perhaps  more  simply,  by  understanding  from  Mm  to  mean 
from  his  family  or  home,  not  his  actual  dwelling  in  Capernaum,  but 
his  former  residence  in  Nazareth  (see  above,  on  1,  9),  where  his  near- 
est relatives  still  lived.  The  phrase  would  then  be  nearly  equivalent 
to  Ms  brethren,  as  used  in  John  7,  3.  5.  But  whatever  be  the  origin 
of  the  expression,  it  is  now  very  commonly  agreed,  that  it  denotes 
those  connected  with  him  either  by  natural  afiQnity  or  previous  ac- 
quaintance, as  distinguished  from  his  followers  and  disciples  as  a  pub- 
lic teacher.  Went  (or  came)  out  may,  consistently  with  usage,  mean 
no  more  than  that  they  went  forth,  put  themselves  in  motion,  or  ad- 
dressed themselves  to  action.  (See  above,  on  1,  38.  3,  6.  and  below, 
on  4,3.  5,14.  6,12.  8,11.  14.  16.  16,20.)  But  in  all  the  alleged 
examples  of  this  vague  sense,  the  original  and  strict  one  is  at  least 
included,  and  is  therefore  here  entitled  to  tlie  preference.  Thus  under- 
stood, came  out  can  only  mean  from  home,  or  from  the  place  where 
they  then  were,  either  in  Capernaum  or  Nazareth.  If  the  latter,  which 
agrees  best  with  the  explanation  of  tliose  from  Mm  as  denoting  his 
relations,  what  is  here  said  cannot  be  confined  to  the  very  day  of  his 


MARK  3,  21.  22 


return  to  Capernaum,  but  a  certain  interval  of  time  must  be  supposed 
to  liave  elapsed  between  his  arrival  and  the  one  here  mentioned.  The 
object  of  this  going  out  was  to  scize^  or,  as  the  older  English  versions 
phrase  it,  Jiold  him,  and  the  reason  which  they  gave  for  this,  that  he 
was  beside  Mmselj]  or  out  of  his  natural  and  normal  state  of  mind  or 
body.  The  Greek  verb  is  the  same  employed  above  (2,  12)  to  signify 
extreme  amazement,  but  intrinsically  applicable  to  any  derangement 
or  disorder,  whether*  bodily  or  mental,  and  actually  used  by  the 
classics  and  Josephus,  with  the  noun  mind  or  senses  (cjipevayv),  to  denote 
insanity,  in  which  sense  Paul  elliptically  makes  use  of  the  verb  alone  (2 
Cor.  5,  13.)  Some  interpreters  prefer  the  sense  of  bodily  exhaus- 
tion, and  suppose  these  friends  to  have  gone  out,  either  to  sustain 
(support)  him,  or  to  hold  him  back  from  such  injurious  exertion.  It 
is  commonly  agreed,  however,  that  the  reference  is  to  mental  disorder 
or  extreme  excitement.  But  even  this  has  been  strangely  understood 
hy  some  as  relating  to  the  multitude, /br  they  (his  friends)  said  that  it 
(the  multitude)  icas  mad,  and  would  destroy  him.  But  this  construc- 
tion of  the  singular  verb,  without  any  thing  to  point  out  a  collective 
subject,  is  so  unnatural  and  forced,  that  almost  all  interpreters  agree 
in  referring  it  to  Christ  himself.  The  meaning  then  is  that  his  friends, 
alarmed  at  the  increasing  agitation  of  the  public  mind,  and  the  incessant 
labours  of  our  Lord  himself,  went  out  to  seize  him  or  secure  his  person, 
either  really  believing,  or  at  least  alleging  as  a  pretext,  that  he  knew 
not  what  he  did,  and  must  be  put  under  restraint  for  his  own  safety. 
This,  unless  a  mere  pretence  designed  to  cloak  some  evil  motive,  does 
not  necessarily  imply  a  total  unbelief  of  his  pretensions,  but  only  an 
imperfect  view  of  them,  and  a  deficiency  of  faith  in  their  validity,  a 
very  natural  and  intelligible  state  of  mind,  at  this  stage  of  the  history, 
and  on  the  part  of  those  whose  spiritual  or  religious  feelings  were  less 
strong  and  well-defined  than  their  natural  affections  or  humanity.  It 
is  introduced  here  as  an  interesting  trait  in  the  historical  picture  of  the 
Saviour's  ministry,  with  its  effects  on  various  classes  both  of  friends 
and  enemies.  It  is  not,  however,  a  mere  isolated  fact,  but  is  connected 
with  the  similar  account  in  vs.  31-35  below,  from  which  it  is  divided 
by  an  interesting  and  important  statement  of  the  influence  exerted  by 
our  Lord's  proceeding,  at  the  same  time,  on  a  very  different  class  of 
men,  to  wit,  his  envious  and  malignant  adversaries,  not  in  the  lowest 
but  the  highest  ranks. 


'o' 


22.  And  the  scribes  whic]i  came  down  from  Jerusa- 
lem, said,  He  hath  Beelzebub,  and  by  the  prince  of  the 
devils  casteth  he  out  devils. 

Mark's  design  being  here  simply  to  illustrate  the  effect  of  our  Lord's 
growing  popularity  on  friends  and  foes,  he  now  proceeds  to  give  an  in- 
stance of  the  latter  kind,  without  describing  its  historical  occasion, 
which  has  been  preserved  by  Matthew  (12,22.  23)  and  Luke  (11,  14.) 
Like  his  first  recorded  conflict  with  the  Scribes  (see  above,  on  2,  3-12), 
this  new  and  wor.se  attack  was  occasioned  by  a  signal  miracle,  the  heal- 


M  A  R  K  3,  22.  73 

ing  of  a  deaf  and  dumb  demoniac,  which  not  only  caused  great  wonder, 
but  suggested  the  inquiry  whether  this  might  not  be  the  Messiah  (Isai. 
35,  5.  Matt,  12,  23.)  This  intimation,  perhaps  the  first  which  had  been 
uttered  pubhcl}',  except  by  evil  spirits  (see  above,  on  1,  24.  34),  would 
of  course  arouse  the  jealousy  and  part\'-spirit  of  those  leading  Jews, 
whose  influence  and  credit  must  be  weakened,  if  not  utterly  destroyed, 
by  the  verification  of  this  popular  idea.  These  feelings  were  according- 
ly expressed,  and  in  a  way  to  show  the  strength  of  their  malignant 
opposition.  The  speakers  are  described  by  Luke  (11,  15)  as  some  of 
the  multitude  by  whom  the  miracle  was  witnessed ;  by  Matthew  (12, 
14)  more  definitely  as  the  Pharisees,  or  members  of  the  ligorous  Jewish 
party  (see  above,  on  2,  IG.  18)  ;  but  by  Mark  still  more  precisely,  as 
the  scribes  who  had  come  doicii  from  Jerumlem^  perhaps  on  hearing  of 
our  Lord's  return  from  his  itinerant  labours  to  Capernaum.  The  ex- 
pression is  too  definite  to  be  explained  of  a  mere  accidental  presence,  or 
a  coming  down  on  other  business.  Nor  is  it  in  the  least  unlikely,  that 
the  general  agitation  and  excitement  of  the  public  mind  by  Christ's  ex- 
traordinary words  and  works  had  now  alarmed  the  rulers  of  the  Jewish 
church,  and  led  them  to  regard  it  as  a  public  question  of  the  highest 
national  importance.  This  is  rendered  still  more  probable  b}'-  John's 
account  of  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist,  when  a  dep- 
utation went  into  the  wilderness  to  ask  him  whether  he  was  the  Mes- 
siah (John  1, 10.  24.)  The  very  answer  which  the}^  then  received  (ib. 
27,  28)  must  have  made  them  more  solicitous  and  watchful  against 
new  pretenders  to  the  jNIessianic  office.  It  is  highly  important  to  re- 
member that  our  Lord  did  not  appear  abruptly  on  the  scene  as  a  new 
personage,  entirely  unconnected  with  the  previous  history  of  Israel, 
but  claimed,  first  tacitly  and  then  more  openly,  to  be  the  great  deliver- 
er promised  in  the  ancient  Scriptures,  and  for  ages  looked  for  by  the 
cho.sen  people.  Hence  the  growing  agitation  which  his  ministry  occa- 
sioned was  not  regarded  as  a  transient  popular  disturbance,  but  as  the 
beginning  of  a  national  and  spiritual  revolution.  But  although  the  mo- 
tive was  the  same  in  either  case,  the  course  now  taken  by  the  leading 
Jews  was  not  entirely  the  same  with  that  before  adopted.  Then,  the 
messengers  were  sent  directly  to  John,  and  demanded  categorically  who 
he  was,  or  what  he  claimed  to  be  (John  1,  19.)  Now,  they  are  merely 
sent  to  Avatch  our  Lord's  proceedings,  and  if  possible  to  stem  the  mighty 
current  of  opinion  which  was  setting  in  his  favour,  by  insidious  sug- 
gestion or  malignant  slander.  Then,  the  persons  sent  were  priests  and 
Levites ;  now  the}''  are  only  scribes,  but  in  both  cases  Pharisees,  and 
sent  directly  from  Jerusalem  (compare  John  1,  19.  24.)  It  is  possible, 
indeed,  that  even  in  the  other  point,  though  not  expressly  mentioned 
here,  the  deputations  were  alike ;  for  as  the  Scribes,  as  the  traditional 
expounders  of  the  law,  were  mostly  if  not  always  Pharisees  (see  above, 
on  1,  22.  2,  16),  so  they  were  no  doubt  often,  if  not  usually,  priests  or 
Levites,  as  the  sacerdotal  tribe  was  specially  entrusted  with  the  conser- 
vation and  interpretation  of  the  law  (Lev.  10.  11.  Deut.  24,  8.  2  Chr. 
15,  3.  35,  3.  Neh.  8,  7.  Jer.  18, 18.  Ez.  7,  2G.'  Mai.  2,  7.  j  It  is  a  seri- 
ous error  to  suppose  that  these  descriptive  titles  are  exclusive  of  each 
4 


74  MAR  K  3.  22. 

other,  and  denote  so  many  independent  classes,  whereas  they  only  de- 
note different  characters  or  relations,  which  might  all  meet  in  one  and 
the  same  person,  as  being  at  the  same  time  a  priest  and  levite  by  de- 
scent and  sacred  office,  a  scribe  by  profession,  and  a  pharisee  in  senti- 
ment and  party-connection.  These  scribes  who  had  come  down  from 
Jerusalem,  unable  to  deny  the  fact  of  the  miraculous  healing,  used  the 
only  other  means  at  their  disposal  to  discredit  him  who  wrought  it,  by 
malignantly  accusing  him  of  impious  collusion  with  the  very  demons 
whom  he  dispossessed.  This,  while  it  shows  their  growing  enmity  and 
malice,  also  proves  the  weakness  of  their  cause,  and  the  reality  of  Christ's 
miraculous  achievements,  which  they  surely  would  have  questioned  if 
the  evidence  had  not  been  overwhehning.  Their  very  charge  against 
him,  therefore,  may  be  reckoned  as  involuntary  testimony  to  the  truth 
of  his  pretensions  to  a  superhuman  power ;  and  their  failure  or  refusal 
to  acknowledge  this  as  an  abundant  confirmation  of  his  Messianic  claims 
can  only  be  ascribed  to  their  infatuation  and  judicial  blindness  (see 
above,  on  v,  6,  and  compare  Luke  G,  11.)  He  liatli  Beelzebub^  or  as  it  is 
written  in  all  Greek  manuscripts,  Beehebul.  The  latter  is  either  a  eu- 
phonic or  fortuitous  corruption  of  the  former,  or  an  intentional  derisive 
change,  like  that  of  Sychem  into  Sycliar  (John  4,  5.)  On  the  Latter 
supposition  it  is  commonly  explained  as  meaning  Dung-god,^  an  expres- 
sion of  contempt  for  Beelzebub,  the  Fly-god  of  the  Philistines  (2  Kings 
1,  2.  3.  G).  either  so  called  as  protecting  his  worshippers  from  noxious  in- 
sects, or  as  being  himself  worshiped  under  an  insect  form.  This  con- 
temptuous description  of  a  heathen  deit}'-  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  Jew- 
ish usage,  and  its  application  in  the  case  before  us  a  conclusive  proof 
of  the  extreme  to  which  these  scribes  had  carried  their  contempt  and 
hatred  of  the  Saviour,  when  they  chose  the  grossest  nickname  of  a  false 
god  to  describe  the  unseen  power  by  whose  aid  he  wrought  his  miracles. 
He  hath  Beelzebub,  i.  e.  he  has  him  in  possession,  a  remarkable  anti- 
phrasis,  in  which  the  mutual  relation  of  the  parties  seems  to  be  invert- 
ed ;  just  as  we  sometimes  speak  of  a  man's  having  or  taking  a  disease, 
and  sometimes  of  his  being  seized  or  attacked  by  it.  So  the  same  essen- 
tial meaning  is  expressed  by  sa3dng  that  a  man  has  a  devil,  and  that  he 
is  possessed  b}"-  a  devil ;  the  prominent  idea  in  the  one  case  being  simply 
that  of  presence,  in  the  other  that  of  power  and  control.  The  man  has 
the  evil  spirit  in  or  with  him ;  but  the  evil  spirit  has  the  man  under 
him,  or  under  his  dominion.  This  preliminary  statement  is  omitted  by 
the  other  two  evangelists  (Matt.  12,  24.  Luke  11,  15),  or  blended  with 
Mark's  next  clause.  In  the  2)rince  (or  chief)  of  the  demons  he  casts 
out  the  demons.  The  preposition  (//?,  not  by)  denotes  not  mere  alliance 
or  assistance,  but  the  most  intimate  personal  union,  such  as  existed  in 
all  cases  of  possession  (see  above,  on  1,  23. 32.)  '  It  is  by  virtue  of  his 
union  and  identification  with  the  ruler  of  the  demons  that  he  casts 
them  out.'  The  word  translated  jtrince  is  properly  a  participle,  mean- 
ing one  who  goes  first,  takes  the  lead,  presides,  or  governs.  As  a  noun, 
it  denotes  magistrates  in  general,  and  in  Grecian  history  the  Archons. 
or  chief  magistrates  of  Athens.  It  is  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to 
Moses,  as  the  national  leader  (Acts  7,  35),  to  members  of  the  Sanhe- 


MARK  3,  22.  23.  75 


drim  or  national  council  (John  3, 1.  7,  50),  and  to  the  local  elders  or 
rulers  of  the  synagogue  (Luke  8,  41),  but  also  to  the  Evil  One,  or  leader 
of  the  fallen  angels,  as  the  "prince  of  this  world"  (John  12,  31.  14,  30. 
IG,  11 ),  as  the  "  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air  "  (Eph.  2,  2),  and  as  the 
"  prince  of  the  devils  "  (Matt.  9,  34.  and  here.)  This  last  word  is  an 
inexact  translation,  as  the  Scriptures  recognize  only  one  Devil^  but  a 
multitude  of  demons  (see  below,  on  5,  9. 15.)  The  former  is  one 
of  the  names  given  to  the  Evil  One  by  way  of  eminence,  as  the 
slanderer  or  false  accuser  of  mankind,  whereas  Satan  represents  him 
as  their  enemy  or  adversary.  (See  above,  on  1, 13,  and  below,  on  vs. 
23.  26.)  The  other  term,  commonly  translated  devils^  is  properly  an 
adjective,  and  originally  means  dicine,  or  rather  siqjei'human,  compre- 
hending all  degrees  and  kinds  of  gods  belonging  to  the  Greek  mythology, 
but  specially  applied  to  those  of  an  inferior  rank,  and  bearing  some  par- 
ticular relation  to  individual  men  as  their  good  or  evil  genius,  in  which 
sense  Xenophon  employs  it  to  describe  the  tutelary  monitor  of  Socrates. 
It  is  perhaps  on  account  of  this  specific  usage  of  the  word  that  it  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  the  ftillen  angels,  or  evil  spirits,  as 
connected  with  the  history  of  our  race,  and  especially  as  active  in  those 
singular  affections  which  derive  from  them  the  name  of  "  demoniacal 
possessions."  Of  these  demonia  or  demons.  Satan,  the  Devil,  is  here 
called  the  prince  or  chief,  but  under  the  derisive  and  disgusting  name 
Beeheiul^  or  Bung-god.  It  is  a  possible,  though  not  a  necessary  sup- 
position, that  this  application  of  the  name  was  customary  and  familiar. 
It  is  more  probable,  however,  as  we  do  not  find  it  in  the  oldest  Jewish 
books  now  extant,  that  it  was  devised  for  the  occasion,  as  a  bitter  sar- 
casm against  Jesus,  whom  it  virtually  represents  as  united  in  the  closest 
manner  to  the  most  unclean  of  spirits,  and  by  his  authority  and  power 
dispossessing  his  inferior  agents.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  important, 
as  implying  a  terrific  aggravation  of  the  sin  committed  by  these  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  in  representing  the  immediate  acts  of  God  as  operations 
not  of  Satan  merely,  but  of  Beelzebub,  which,  though  applied  to  the 
same  being,  is  peculiarly  insulthig,  as  it  identifies  him  with  the  Fly-god 
of  the  old  Philistines,  and  the  Dung-god  into  which  this  idol  had  beeji 
changed  by  the  bitterness  of  Jewish  controversial  satire. 

23.  And  lie  called  tliem  (unto  liim),  and  said  unto 
tliem  in  parables,  How  can  Satan  cast  out  Satan  ? 

Without  as  yet  advepting  to  this  odious  aggravation  of  their  calumny, 
our  Lord  refutes  the  charge  itself,  by  showing  its  absurdity  on  any 
principle  of  action,  whether  human  or  Satanic.  The  Jews  believed,  and 
justly,  that  the  Devil  was  not  a  mere  chance  opponent  or  occasional 
adversary  of  our  race,  but  one  whose  vast  capacity  was  wholly  occupied 
in  this  great  warfare  ;  who,  so  far  as  his  own  wishes  went,  existed  only 
for  the  purpose  of  destroying  man  and  defeating  his  deliverer.  They 
were  fiimiliar  w^th  the  j^^'otevangelium,  the  primeval  promise  or  predic- 
tion of  a  fluctuating  and  protracted  conflict  between  two  antagonistic 
races,  represented  by  their  several  heads.  Christ  and  Satan.     To  sup- 


7G  M  ARK  3,  23.  24. 

pose  that  either  party  in  this  war  of  ages  could  mistake  or  change  sides, 
was  a  paradox  too  gross  to  need  any  refutation  hut  a  simple  exposure 
of  it  in  its  nakedness  ;  and  this  is  all  that  the  Redeemer  here  does.  It 
is  not  a  formal  argument,  as  some  assume,  and  then  decry  it  as  illogical 
and  inconclusive  ;  it  is  merely  a  statement  of  the  charge  in  its  true 
meaning,  and  in  comparison  with  what  they  all  believed  and  were  ready 
to  acknowledge.  As  this  mode  of  reasoning  rested  on  relations  and 
analogies  which  needed  only  to  be  hinted  at  without  amplification  or 
elaborate  discussion,  the  evangelist  naturally  says  that  Tie  spake  to  tliem 
i)i  parahles^  i.  e.  by  similitudes,  comparisons,  analogies,  and  not  by 
syllogisms  or  dogmatic  propositions.  Calling  them  to  Mm,  i.  e.  those 
who  had  uttered  this  malignant  charge,  and  whom  he  now  singles  out 
from  among  the  multitude,  and  as  it  were  challenges  either  to  establish 
or  retract  it.  Hoid  can  Satan  cast  out  Satan?  This  simple  question 
contains  the  sum  of  the  whole  refutation.  It  implies,  as  previous  ques- 
tions, who  is  Satan  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  very  name  ?  What 
relation  does  it  necessarily  denote  ?  How  can  the  adversary  be  a  friend  ? 
IIow  can  the  leader  of  one  party,  in  a  war  which  has  been  going  on  for 
ages,  be  the  ally  of  his  enemy  and  conqueror  ?  Christ  came  avowedly, 
as  well  as  really,  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil  (1  John  3,  8),  not 
as  an  incidental  or  collateral  effect,  but  as  the  very  object  of  his  work 
and  mission.  Of  this  mission  the  credentials  were  his  miracles.  Of 
these  miracles  the  most  convincing  were  his  dispossessions.  To  sup- 
pose that  Satan  would  corroborate  these  strongest  proofs  of  Christ's 
superiority,  was  not  only  to  deny  him  the  sagacity  and  cunning  which 
belong  to  his  whole  nature  as  the  arch-deceiver  and  the  actual  seducer 
of  mankind,  but  to  ignore  the  history  of  men  and  devils  since  the  fall 
of  our  first  parents.  The  Saviour's  question,  therefore,  is  equivalent 
to  saying,  '  the  Evil  One  is  called  Satan,  because  he  is  essentially  and 
always  the  adversary  of  the  human  race,  whose  nature  I  have  taken, 
and  of  w^hom  I  am  the  head  and  representative,  and  am  to  be  the 
Saviour  and  Redeemer ;  to  suppose  that  we  are  in  collusion,  therefore, 
is  like  confounding  life  and  death,  or  light  and  darkness.' 

24.  And  if  a  kingdom  be  divided  against  itself,  tliat 
kingdom  cannot  stand. 

He  illustrates  this  from  human  experience,  where  analogous  rela- 
tions exist,  and  like  causes  produce  like  effects,  on  a  small  as  well  as  on 
a  great  scale.  The  first  illustrative  comparison  is  taken  from  a  king- 
dom, a  state,  a  body  politic,  implying  not  a  mere  aggregation  of  men, 
but  organic  life  and  unity  of  principle  and  interest.  The  fact  alleged  is 
not  that  all  intestine  strife  or  division  is  destructive  to  a  state,  which  is 
not  universally  or  always  true,  but  that  a  state  which  wars  against 
itself,  so  far  as  in  it  lies,  contributes  to  its  own  destruction.  If  such  a 
policy  in  human  kingdoms  would  be  justly  reckoned  suicidal,  and  a^ 
variance  with  the  end  for  which  the  state  exists,  how  can  that  whicl 
would  be  folly  in  a  human  sovereign  be  imputed  to  the  most  astute  and 
crafty,  as  well  as  the  most  spiteful  and  malignant  being  in  the  universe  : 


MARK  3,  24.  25.  2G.  77 

The  argument  involved  in  this  comparison  is  not  merely  that  the  course 
supposed  would  be  injurious,  or  ruinous,  and  therefore  Satan  cannot  be 
supposed  to  take  it,  but  that  it  would  be  self-contradictory  and  foolish, 
and  at  variance  with  the  very  end  for  which  he  has  been  plotting  and 
deceiving  since  the  woild  began.  He  is  not  too  good  to  pursue  such  a 
course,  but  he  is  f\ir  too  cunning.  That  lingdo^n, one  thus  divided  and 
at  war  against  itself,  cannot  stand,  a  more  significant  expression  in 
Greek,  because  the  form  is  passive,  and  although  in  usage  substituted 
for  the  active,  still  retaining  something  of  its  proper  force,  and  therefore 
suggesting  the  idea,  that  it  cannot  be  established,  made  to  stand,  by 
such  a  pi'ocess.  The  use  of  this  expression  shows  still  further,  that 
the  reference  is  not  so  much  to  strife  between  the  subjects  of  a  king- 
dom, which  may  sometimes  bo  essential  to  its  welfare,  but  to  its 
waging  war  against  itself,  the  state  (as  such)  opposing  its  own  interests 
and  aiming  at  its  own  destruction.  Such  a  case  may  be  impossible,  or 
never  really  occur ;  but  if  it  should,  the  state  would  be  its  own  de- 
stroyer. So  would  Satan,  if  he  should  do  likewise.  But  that  he  who 
is  called  Apollyon,  as  the  destroyer  of  others,  should  attempt  self- 
destruction,  is  entirely  inconceivable.  Among  men,  suicide  implies  an 
utter  ignorance  or  disbelief  of  all  futurity  ;  but  no  such  incredulity  or 
error  is  conceivable  in  one  who  knows  already  in  his  own  experience 
what  it  is  to  perish  and  yet  contirme  to  exist; for  as  to  this,  as  well  as 
to  the  being  and  the  unity  of  God,  "  the  devils  also  believe  and  trem- 
ble "  (James  2,  19.) 

25.  And  if  an  house  be  divided  against  itself,  that 
house  cannot  stand. 

The  same  thing  is  true  within  a  sphere  still  narrower,  for  instance 
in  a  family  or  household,  when  not  only  divided,  i.  e.  composed  of  hos- 
tile and  discordant  members,  but  divided  against  itself,  i.  e.  arrayed  as 
a  whole,  or  as  a  body,  against  its  own  interest  or  existence.  That  this 
is  the  true  point  of  our  Lord's  comparison,  is  shown  by  the  circum- 
stance that  both  his  illustrations  are  derived  not  from  the  case  of  indi- 
viduals at  strife,  but  from  communities  or  aggregate  bodies,  large  or 
small.  The  only  analogous  case  that  could  have  been  adduced  from 
the  experience  of  a  single  person,  is  the  strange  one  of  a  man  divided 
against  himself  and  striving  for  his  own  destruction.  But  leaving  this 
to  be  completed  by  his  hearers,  he  proceeds  in  the  next  verse  to  apply 
what  he  has  said  already. 

26.  And  if  Satan  rise  up  against  himself,  and  be  di- 
vided, he  cannot  stand,  but  hath  an  end. 

What  is  thus  true  of  a  kingdom  and  a  household  among  men  is  no 
less  true  of  Satan  ;  for  if  he  has  risen  iij)  against  himself,  and  been 
divided^  he  cannot  (possibly  be  made  to)  stand,  Init  has  an  end,  or 
ceases  to  be  what  he  is.  Had  the  idea  of  division,  in  these  various 
illustrations,  been  the  simple  one  of  some  opposing  others,  our  Lord 


J8  M  A  R  K  3,  26.  27.  28. 

would  no  doubt  liave  ai)plied  his  argument  or  principle  to  Satan's  king- 
dom rather  than  himself;  but  as  he  here  presents  the  paradoxical  idea 
of  Satan  as  an  individual  divided  into  two,  and  one  ai-ravcd  against  the 
other,  we  may  safely  infer,  that  this  very  paradox  was  meant  to  be  the 
point  of  his  whole  argument.  If  they  had  said,  Neither  man  nor  devil 
can  be  thus  divided  so  as  to  make  war  upon  himself,  he  might  have 
answered.  How  absurd  then  upon  your  part  to  allege  such  a  division, 
by  accusing  me  of  being  in  alliance  with  my  opposite  !  If  Satan  could 
be  thus  divided,  he  would  not  be  Satan,  but  would  have  an  end. 

27.  ISio  man  can  enter  into  a  strong  man's  house,  and 
spoil  liis  goods,  except  lie  Avill  iirst  bind  the  strong  man ; 
and  then  he  will  spoil  his  house. 

Having  shown  that  their  idea  of  collusion  "with  Satan  was  at  vari- 
ance with  the  very  nature  and  essence  of  Satan  himself,  he  adds' 
another,  likewise  drawn  from  the  experience  of  common  life,  to  show 
the  conclusion  which  they  must  have  drawn  in  an  analogous  case,  and 
which  they  therefore  should  have  drawn  in  this.  AVhen  a  rich  man, 
able  to  protect  his  goods,  is  robbed,  no  one  imagines  he  has  robbed 
himself,  but  every  one  regards  it  as  the  work,  not  only  of  an  enemy, 
but  also  of  an  enemy  superior  in  power.  So,  too,  when  they  saw  Satan's 
instruments  and  agents  dispossessed  and  driven  out  by  Jesus,  instead 
of  arguing  that  he  and  Satan  were  in  league  together,  they  ought  rather 
to  have  argued  that  the  prince  of  this  world  was  cast  out  and  judged 
(John  12,  31.  16,  11),  that  he  had  met  his  match,  or  rather  came  in 
contact  with  his  conqueror.  "What  clearer  proof  could  be  demanded, 
both  of  Christ's  superiorit}'  and  enmit}^  to  Satan,  than  the  havoc  which 
he  made  of  Satan's  instruments  and  tools,  to  which  there  may  be  some 
allusion  in  the  word  translated  goods,  which  properly  means  vessels, 
utensils,  or  implements  of  any  kind,  (see  below,  11,  10,  and  compare 
Luke  17,  31.  Acts  27,  17,)  and  may  be  well  applied  to  those  inferior 
demons  of  whom  Satan  was  the  prince  and  leader. 

28.  Yerily,  I  say  nnto  you,  All  sins  shall  be  forgiven 
nnto  the  sons  of  men,  and  blasphemies  wherewitli  soever 
they  shall  blaspheme. 

Thus  far  the  Lord  has  been  refuting  the  absurdity  of  their  malig- 
nant charge,  without  regard  to  its  peculiarly  offensive  form  ;  and  as  he 
uses  the  word  Satan,  not  Beelzebub,  it  might  appear  that  he  intended 
to  pass  over  the  gross  insult  without  further  notice.  But  he  now  re- 
bukes it,  indirectly  it  is  true,  but  with  so  awful  a  severity,  that  few 
can  read  the  words  and  even  partly  understand  them  without  shudder- 
ing. This  passage,  with  its  parallels  in  Luke  and  Matthew,  has  been 
always  and  unanimously  reckoned  one  of  the  most  shocking  and  alarm- 
ing in  the  word  of  God  ;  but  it  acquires  a  new  solemnity  and  terror 
when  considered  in  its  true  connection  with  what  goes  before,  and  not 


M  A  11  K  3,  28.  29.  ^  79 


as  a  mere  insulated  and  detached  expression  of  a  mysterious  and  fearful 
truth.  The  scribes  had  represented  him  as  in  collusion  with  the  devil, 
under  an  unusual  and  most  offensive  name,  importing  that  the  spirit 
which  possessed  Christ  was  himself  an  unclean,  nay,  a  filthy  spirit. 
Instead  of  formally  reproving  them  for  this  unparalleled  affront  to  him- 
self and  to  the  Spirit  who  was  in  him,  he  describes  to  them  the  nature 
of  the  sin  which  they  had  almost,  if  not  quite,  committed,  and  the  doom 
awaiting  it  hereafter.  This  momentous  declaration,  like  a  sentence  of 
death,  opens  with  a  solemn  formula  of  affirmation.  Amen,  here  trans- 
lated verily  (or  truJi/),  is  a  Hebrew  adjective,  originall}^  meaning  sure 
or  certain,  but  employed  as  an  ejaculatory  particle  of  assent  or  concur- 
rence, at  the  close  or  in  the  intervals  of  prayers,  benedictions,  curses, 
vows,  or  other  forms  of  a  religious  kind,  when  uttered  by  one  or  more 
persons  in  the  name  of  others.  (Num.  5,  22.  Deut.  27,  15.  1  Kings  1, 
36.  1  Chr.  16,  36.  Ps.  106,  48.  Jer.  28,  6.  Matt.  6,  13.  1  Cor.  14,  16. 
Rev.  5,  14.  22,  20.)  But  besides  these  cases,  and  some  others  where 
the  word  is  retained  without  translation,  there  are  many  more  in  which 
it  is  translated  verily,  and  stands  not  at  the  end  but  the  beginning  of 
a  sentence.  This  is  one  of  the  most  marked  characteristics  of  our 
Saviour's  manner  which  have  been  preserved  to  us,  especially  by  John, 
who  always  w^rites  it  twice,  a  form  not  found  in  any  of  the  other  gos- 
pels. In  the  case  before  us,  as  in  others,  it  invites  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing words  as  uttered  on  divine  authority,  and  therefore  truth  itself. 
The  same  idea  is  often  expressed  in  the  Old  Testament  by  a  divine 
oath-  I  say  unto  you  is  an  expressive  formula,  too  often  overlooked  as 
pleonastic  ;  but  containing  two  emphatic  pronouns.  I,  the  Son  of  God, 
and  yet  the  Son  of  man,  declare  to  you,  nw  spiteful  enemies  and  false 
accusers.  All  the  sins  shall  he  remitted  to  the  sons  of  men,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  human  race,  not  all  the  sins  of  everj^  individual,  but  every 
kind  of  sin  to  some  one.  There  is  no  sin  (with  the  subsequent  excep- 
tion) so  enormous  that  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  to  some  sinner  who 
commits  it.  ^Vhat  is  thus  said  of  sin  in  general,  is  then  said  of  a  sin- 
gle class  of  sins,  among  the  most  appalling  that  can  be  committed  or 
conceived  of,  and  the  Masphemies  tchatever  (i.  e.  however  great  or  many 
that)  they  may  Maspheme  (see  above,  on  2,  7.)  This  is  specified,  not 
merely  to  enforce  the  previous  declaration  by  applying  it  to  sins  directly 
against  God,  and  in  the  last  degree  insulting  to  him,  but  also  to  con- 
nect it  with  the  case  in  hand,  or  the  occasion  on  which  it  was  uttered. 

29.  But  he  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal 
damnation. 

Now  follows  the  mysterious  and  terrible  exception.  Whoever  shall 
hlasplienie  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath  not  remission  {ov  forgiveness) 
to  eternity,  hut  is  suhjeet  (or  ohnoxious)  to  eternal  judgment.  The 
common  version  of  the  second  clause  (Jiath  never  forgiveness),  though 
impressive  and  substantially  correct,  obscures  the  antithesis  between 
the  cognate  noun  and  adjective  (ata>m  and  al(,)viov).    The  former  properly 


80  MARK  3,  29.  30.  31. 

denotes  duration^  sometimes  definite,  as  an  age.  a  lifetime,  or  a  dis- 
pensation, but,  when  limited  by  nothing  in  the  context,  indefinite  and 
even  infinite  duration.  This  strongest  sense  would  be  implied  here, 
even  if  these  words  were  not  expressed,  by  the  structure  of  the  sen- 
tence. If  some  sins  will  be  forgiven  and  some  not,  the  latter  must  be 
coextensive  with  the  former ;  and  as  those  forgiven  are  forgiven  to 
eternit}^,  those  unforgiven  must  eternally  remain  so.  The  same  thing 
is  more  positively  stated  in  the  last  clause.  As  his  sin  is  not  to  be 
remitted,  he  is  of  course  subject  to  eternal  condemnation,  i.  e.  actually 
subject  or  judicially  subjected  to  it.  and  not  merely  in  danger  of  it,  as 
the  word  is  inexactly  rendered.  This  is  not  the  meaning  even  in  14, 
G4,  below,  where  it  is  used  to  denote  guilt  or  ill-desert,  as  necessarily 
inferring  condemnation  and  execution,  here  included  in  the  one  word 
judgment.  Even  sin,  the  reading  now  adopted  by  the  critics,  must 
be  taken  in  the  same  improper  sense  of  j^^i^iiskment. 

30.  Because  they  said,  He  liatli  an  unclean  spirit. 

Lest  there  should  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  bearing  of  this  fearful 
sentence,  Mark  specifically  mentions  what  occasioned  it,  only  ex- 
changing the  name  Bechehulj  for  vnclean-  spij'lt,  which  is  really  its 
meaning.  It  appears  then  that  in  charging  him  with  being  thus  pos- 
sessed, they  either  did  commit,  or  were  in  danger  of  committing,  the 
unpardonable  sin  of  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  cannot 
consist  therefore  in  mere  obstinate  unbelief  or  final  impenitence,  for 
these  are  chargeable  on  all  who  perish,  and  could  not  be  described  in 
such  terms  as  a  peculiar  sin  distinguished  from  'all  others,  and  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  (12.  31),  even  from  the  sin  of  speaking  a  word  against 
the  Son  of  God.  There  are  two  other  explanations  wiiich  have  been 
extensively  received  and  are  entitled  to  attention.  One  of  these  is 
founded  upon  Matthew's  statement,  and  supposes  a  distinction  between 
Jesus,  as  the  Son  of  man,  i.  e.  a  divine  person  in  the  form  of  a  servant 
(Phil.  2.  7),  and  under  that  disguise  liable  to  be  mistaken,  so  that  men 
might  speak  against  him  and  blaspheme  him,  not  indeed  without  ag- 
gravated guilt,  but  without  incurring  this  tremendous  condemnation  ; 
and  on  the  other  hand  Jesus,  as  the  Son  of  God,  with  the  manifest 
tokens  of  divinity  afforded  by  his  miracles  of  mercy.  But  as  this  docs 
not  account  for  the  Holy  Spirit  being  put  in  opposition  to  the  Son  of 
man,  and  as  Mark  omits  this  opposition  altogether,  most  interpreters 
agi-ee  that  the  unpardonable  sin  consists  in  obstinate  rejection  of  the 
truth,  and  wilful  apostasy  from  God,  in  opposition  to  one's  own  con- 
victions, and  with  malignant  hatred  of  the  gospel,  the  expression  of 
which  is  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  illuminating 
Spirit  by  whom  truth  is  carried  home  to  the  heart  and  understanding 
of  believers,  and  to  whom  such  apostasy  and  unbelief  are  therefore 
more  especially  insulting. 

31.  There   came  then  his  brethren  and  his  mother, 
and  standing  without  sent  unto  him,  calling  him. 


MARK  3,  31.  81 

llien  is  not  an  adverb  of  time  (jotc)  but  a  logical  connective  (oui^), 
often  rendered   therefore  (as  in  10,9.    12,6.23.27.37.  13,35),  and 
sometimes  (when  preceded   by  /xeV)  so  then,  when  an  interrupted  nar- 
rative or  argument  is  resumed  and  continued.     This  is  probabl}^  the 
moaning  of  the  particle  in  this  case,  where  it  seems  to  connect  the  in- 
cident that  follows  with  something  in  the  foregoing  context,  as  in  our 
colloquial  phrases,  'well  (or  so  then),  as  I  was  saying.'     The  retro- 
spective reference  must  be  to  the  statement  in  v.  21,  that  his  own 
friends  or  relatives  came  out  to  secure  his  person,  thinking  him  beside 
himself.      Having   been  led  by   a  natural  association   under  divine 
guidance  to  give  some  account  of  the  effect  produced  by  Christ's  in- 
creasing popularity  upon  his  most    malignant  enemies  (22-30),  the 
wTiter  now  returns  to  the  effect  upon  his  friends,  especially  those 
nearest  to  him.     This  view  of  the  connection  throws  some  light  upon 
the  conduct  of  his  mother  and  his  brethren,  in  disturbing  him  while 
publicly  engaged  in  teaching.     That  they  would  venture  to  do  so 
without  a  reason,  or  on  ordinary  business,  or  from  personal  affection, 
or  from  pride  in  their  connection  with  him,  although  not  impossible,  is 
far  less  probable  than  that  they  were  actuated  by  an  anxious  care  for 
his  own  safety,  and  called  for  him  in  order  to  arrest  what  they  re- 
garded as  a  wild  and  dangerous  excitement,  both  on  his  part  and  on 
that  of  the  assembled  masses.     It  may  be  difficult  for  us,  with  our 
habitual   associations,   to   appreciate   the   motives    of  these   anxious 
friends ;  but  at  the  juncture  here  described,  nothing  could  be  more 
natural  and  pardonable  than   precisely  such  solicitude,  which  is  per- 
fectly compatible  with  true  faith  and  affection,  but  imperfect  views 
both  of  his  person  and  his  mission.     The  principal  actor  in  this  scene 
is  his  mother,   the  brothers  merely  following  or  attending  her,  but 
joining  in  her  message  and  request.     It  has  been  a  subject  of  dispute 
^  for  ages,  whether  these  brothers  of  our  Lord  were  sons  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  or  of  Joseph  by  a  former  wife,  or  nephews  of  either,  all  which 
hj'potheses  have  been  maintained  by  high  authorities.     Some  of  the 
questions  in  relation  to  this  topic  will  recur  below  (on  6,  3),  and  some 
of  them  belong  rather  to  the  exposition  of  Matthew  (1,  25.)     All  that 
is  necessary  here  is  to  observe  that  they  were  certainly  his  near  rela- 
tions, and  either  by  birth  or  by  adoption  members  of  his  mother's 
family,  so  that  they  constantly  attended  her  and  acted  with  her  upon 
this  occasion.      Without^  either  outside  of  the  house,  or  more  probably 
beyond  the  circle  of  his  hearers  in  the   open  air.     Sent   to  him,  no 
doubt  by  passing  the  message  from  man  to  man  until  it  reached  him, 
W' hich  they  could  not  do  themselves  from  the  extent  and  pressure  of 
the  crowd.     Calling  him  (pvfor  him)  might  appear   to  be  a  peremp- 
tory summons,  but  for  the  milder  statement  of  Luke  (8,  20),  that  they 
wished  to  see  him,  and  of  Matthew  (12,  46.  47),  that  they  sought  to 
speak  to  him.     This  last  evangelist  connects  the  incident  expressly 
wnth  the  same  discourse  that  here  precedes  it,  but  with  a  part  of  that 
discourse  which  JMark  has  not  reported,  and  which  Luke  gives  in  a  dif- 
ferent connection  (11,  24—36.) 

4^- 


82  MARK  3,  32.  33.  34.  35. 

32.  And  tlie  luultitiide  sat  about  liiin  ;  and  they  said 

unto  liim,  Beliold,  thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  without 

seek  for  tliee. 

The  emphatic  word  here  is  not  sat  but  multitude.  Their  posture 
was  of  no  importance,  even  as  a  vivid  recollection  of  a  witness ;  but 
it  was  important  to  observe  that  he  was  in  the  midst  of  a  crowd  (not 
the  croicd).  to  explain  why  his  friends  did  not  speak  to  him  directly 
but  through  others.  Thei/  said,  i.  e.  one  to  another,  till  the  nearest 
finally  reported  it  to  Jesus  (Matt.  12, 47.)  There  is  no  ground  there- 
fore for  the  singular  idea,  that  this  person  wish-ed  to  interrupt  our 
Lord's  discourse  as  too  alarming  (Matt.  12,  39-45),  by  directing  his 
attention  to  his  friends  who  were  present  and  inquiring  for  him. 

33.  And  he  answered  them,  saying,  Who  is  my  moth- 
er, or  my  brethren  ? 

Our  Lord  takes  occasion  from  this  incident  to  teach  them  that  his 
relative  position  in  society  was  wholly  different  from  that  of  others,  his 
domestic  ties,  though  real,  being  as  nothing  in  comparison  with  those 
which  bound  him  to  his  spiritual  household.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
the  question  here  recorded,  '  Do  you  think  that  my  condition  is  the 
same  as  yours,  and  that  the  wishes  of  m}'^  mother  and  my  brothers  are 
as  binding  upon  me  as  those  of  your  own  households  are  and  ought  to  be 
on  )'0u  1 '  There  is  no  doubt  an  implied  negation  of  the  proposition 
thus  suggested,  as  if  he  had  said,  You  are  mistaken  in  supposing  that 
my  family  relations  are  the  same  as  yours,  or  that  my  mother  and 
brothers  are  what  j'ou  express  by  those  endearing  names.  The  con- 
temptuous meaning  put  by  some  upon  the  words,  as  if  he  had  intended 
to  say,  AYhat  are  they  to  me?  or  what  care  I  for  them  ?  is  wholly  for- 
eign from  the  text  and  context. 

34:.  And  he  looked  round  about  on  them  which  sat 
about  him,  and  said,  Behold,  my  mother  and  my  breth- 
ren ! 

Here  again  Mark  has  preserved  to  us  a  look  or  gesture  of  our  Lord, 
not  mentioned  by  the  others.  Looking  round  in  a  circle,  that  is, 
tiyning  quite  round,  so  as  to  survey  the  whole  assembly,  not  (as  in  v. 
5,  above)  with  grief  and  anger,  but  no  doubt  with  an  affectionate  and 
tender  recognition  of  his  true  friends  and  disciples.  See,  behold,  (these 
are)  my  mother  and  my  hrothers,  i.  e.  my  famil}--  and  nearest  kindred. 
I  am  not  bound,  as  you  are,  to  a  single  household,  but  embrace,  as 
equally  allied  and  dear  to  me,  this  vast  assembly. 

35.  For  whosoever  shall  do  tlie  will  of  God,  the  same 

is  my  brother,  and  my  sister,  and  motlier. 

Lest  this  comprehensive  statement  should  lead  any  to  imagine  that 
mere  outward  attendance  on  his  teaching  would  entitle  them  to  this 


M  A  R  K  3,  35.  83 

distinction,  he  emphatically  adds,  that  it  belonged  to  none  but  those 
who  acted  out  as  well  as  listened  to  his  doctrine.  It  was  only  he  who 
did  the  will  of  God,  as  Christ  announced  it,  that  could  claim  the  hon- 
our of  this  near  relationship.  But  where  this  condition  was  complied 
with,  even  the  poorest  and  most  ignorant,  and  in  themselves  the  most 
unworthy  of  his  hearers,  were  as  truly  members  of  his  household,  and 
as  affectionately  cherished  by  him,  as  his  highly  favoured  mother,  who 
was  blesssd  among  women  (Luke  1.  28),  or  his  brothers  and  his  sisters 
according  to  the  flesh.  This  delightful  assurance,  far  from  abjuring 
his  natural  relations,  only  makes  them  a  standard  of  comparison  for 
others.  Far  from  saying  that  he  does  not  love  his  mother  and  his 
brethren,  he  declares  that  he  has  equal  love  for  all  who  do  the  will  of 
God.  Such  a  profession  from  a  mere  man  might  be  justly  understood 
as  implying  a  deficiency  of  natural  affection,  since  so  wide  a  diffusion 
of  the  tenderest  attachments  must  detract  from  their  intensity  within  a 
narrow  sphere.  Of  Christ  alone  can  it  be  literall}'  true,  that  while  he 
loved  those  nearest  to  him  with  a  love  beyond  all  human  experience  or 
capacity,  and  with  precisely  the  affection  due  to  each  beloved  object,  he 
embraced  with  equal  tenderness  and  warmth  the  thousands  who  com- 
posed his  spiritual  household,  and  will  continue  so  to  do  forever.  The 
implied  reproof  of  his  friends' interference  with  his  sacred  functions,  was 
intended  only  for  themselves.  What  he  said  to  the  multitude,  instead 
of  disparaging  his  natural  relations,  magnified  and  honoured  them  by 
making  them  the  measure  of  his  spiritual  friendships ;  and  even  if  he 
meant  to  say  that  those  who  did  the  will  of  God  were  the  only  relatives 
whom  he  acknowledged,  he  must  still  have  given  a  high  place  among 
them  to  his  mother,  notwithstanding  her  anxieties  on  his  behalf,  and  to 
his  brothers  also,  if  believers.     (Compare  John  7,  5.) 


•»> 


CHAPTEE  lY. 

Having  shown  how  Christ  prepared  the  way  for  the  re-organization  of 
the  Church,  by  choosing  and  training  men  who  should  effect  it,  Mark 
now  describes  the  other  part  of  this  preparatory  process,  which  consisted 
in  our  Lord's  own  exposition  of  the  nature  of  his  kingdom,  and  the 
principles  on  which  it  was  to  be  established.  Though  he  does  not  give 
the  principal  discourse  of  this  kind  (commonly  called  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount),  he  exemplifies  the  Saviour's  method  of  promoting  the  same 
end  by  parables,  of  which  this  chapter  gives  three  specimens.  The 
first,  and  much  the  longest,  shows  that  his  kingdom  was  to  be  erected 
in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  the  various  receptions  which  it  would  there 
meet  with  (1-25.)  The  second  teaches  that,  although  this  kingdom 
was  to  be  established  in  and  among  men,  and  with  their  cooperation,  its 
success  was  to  be  wholly  inde]  'indent  of  their  will  and  efforts  (26-29.) 


84  MARK  4,  1. 

The  third  illustrates  its  expansive  nature,  and  the  divine  will  with  re- 
spect to  its  diffusion  (30-32.)  To  these  three  parables,  all  derived  from 
agricultural  experience,  Mark  adds  a  general  statement  as  to  our  Sa- 
viour's use  of  this  mode  of  instruction  (33,  34.)  The  remainder  of  the 
chapter  is  occupied  A^-ith  the  account  of  a  new  miracle,  different  from 
any  one  before  recorded,  and  connected  chronologically  with  the  para- 
bles by  which  it  is  preceded  in  the  narrative  (35-41.)  It  is  still  observ- 
able, however,  here  as  in  the  former  chapters,  that  the  order  of  time  is 
altogether  subordinated  to  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  method  and 
effects  of  our  Lord's  ministry. 

1.  And  he  began  again  to  teacli  by  the  sea-side :  and 
there  was  gathered  nnto  him  a  great  multitude,  so  that 
he  entered  into  a  ship,  and  sat  in  the  sea ;  and  the  whole 
multitude  was  by  the  sea,  on  the  huid. 

Like  Luke  (8,  4)  and  Matthew  (13, 1).  Mark  records,  as  a  sort  of 
epoch  or  important  juncture  in  his  history,  the  beginning  of  our  Sa- 
viour's parabolical  instructions,  as  a  part  of  the  preparatory  process  by 
which  he  contributed  to  the  reorganization  of  the  Church,  although  he 
did  not  actually  make  the  change  during  his  personal  presence  upon 
earth,  because,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  to  rest  upon  his  death  and  res- 
urrection as  its  corner-stone.  The  other  part  of  his  preparatory  work 
consisted  in  the  choice  and  education  of  the  men  by  whom  the  change 
was  to  be  afterwards  effected.  (See  above,  on  1.  16.  2, 13.)  Began., 
as  in  1,  45.  2,  23,  is  not  superfluous,  but  indicates  the  opening  of  some 
new  series  or  process,  which  was  to  be  afterwards  continued.  Affnin, 
on  the  other  hand,  suggests  that  this  was  not  the  commencement  of  his 
teaching  ministry,  but  only  of  one  form  of  it.  He  had  already  taught 
the  people  publicly  with  great  effect  (see  above,  on  1,  22),  but  now  be- 
gan to  teach  them  in  a  peculiar  manner,  with  a  special  purpose  to  elu- 
cidate the  nature  of  his  kingdom,  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  were  to 
be  his  subjects,  but  without  a  too  explicit  and  precipitate  disclosure  of 
his  claim  to  the  Messiahship.  Bi/  the  seaside,  or  along  tlie  sea^  i.  e.  the 
lake  of  Tiberias  or  Galilee  (see  above,  on  1,  IG),  not  only  near  it,  but 
upon  the  very  shore.  Was  gatliered.,  or,  according  to  the  oldest  text, 
is  gathered  (or  asseml>lcd^.  a  more  graphic  form,  exhibiting  the  scene  as 
actually  passing.  Another  emendation  by  the  latest  critics  is  the 
change  of  the  positive  (gi-eat)  to  the  superlative  (greatest),  either  in 
reference  to  all  former  gatherings,  or  absolutely  in  the  sense  of  veri/ 
great.  Multitude,  or  crowd,  the  Greek  word  indicating  not  mere  num- 
bers, but  promiscuous  assemblage  (see  above,  on  2,  4.  13.  3,  9.  20.  32.) 
The  situation  is  like  that  described  in  3,  9,  where  we  read  that  he  di- 
rected a  small  vessel  to  be  ready,  if  the  crowd  should  be  so  great  as  to 
prevent  his  standing  on  the  shore  with  safety  or  convenience.  Here 
we  find  him  actually  entering  into  (or  emharMng  in)  the  Ijoat.^  no 
doubt  the  one  already  mentioned  as  in  readiness,  and  sitting  in  the  sea, 
i.  e.  upon  the  surface  of  the  lake,  while  liis  vast  audience  was  on  the  land 


MARK  4,  1.  2.  85 


(but)  at  (or  close  to)  the  sea,  a  stronger  expression  of  proximity  than 
that  in  the  first  clause.  The  scene  thus  presented  must  have  been 
highly  impressive  to  the  eye,  and  still  aflbrds  a  striking  subject  for  the 
pencil. 

2.  And  he  tanglit  tliem  many  things  by  parables,  and 
said  unto  them  in  his  doctrine, 

Taught  is  in  the  imperfect  tense,  and  according  to  Greek  usage 
properly  denotes  continued  or  habitual  action,  lie  icas  teaching  or  he 
used  to  teach.  This  yields  a  good  sense,  as  the  writer  is  undoubtedly 
describing  one  of  our  Lord's  favourite  and  constant  modes  of  teaching. 
But  the  use  of  the  aorist  by  JMatthew  (13,  3)  and  Luke  (8,  4).  and  the 
specific  reference  by  Mark  himself  (in  v.  1)  to  a  particular  occasion, 
seem  to  forbid  the  wider  meaning,  unless  it  be  supposed  that  he  made 
use  of  the  imperfect  (as  of  the  verb  hegari)  to  intimate  that,  although 
this  was  the  first  instance  of  such  teaching,  it  was  not  the  last.  Many 
things^  of  which  only  samples  are  preserved,  even  by  Matthew,  and 
still  fewer  in  the  book  before  us,  showing  that  the  Avriter's  aim  was  not 
to  furnish  an  exhaustive  history,  but  to  illustrate  by  examples  the 
ministry  of  Christ.  In  jyarahles,  i.  e.  in  the  form  and  in  the  use  of 
them.  Paraile  is  a  slight  modification  of  a  Greek  noun,  the  verbal 
root  of  which  has  two  principal  meanings,  to  'proijouncl  (throw  out  or 
put  forth),  and  to  compare  (throw  together  or  la}--  side  by  side.)  The 
sense  of  the  noun  derived  from  the  former  usage,  that  of  any  thing  pro- 
pounded, is  too  vague  to  be  distinctive,  comprehending  as  it  does  all 
kinds  of  instruction,  which,  from  its  very  nature,  must  be  put  forth  or 
imparted  from  one  mind  to  another.  The  more  specific  sense  of  com- 
parison, resemblance,  is  not  only  sanctioned  by  the  usage  of  the  best 
Greek  writers  (such  as  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Isocrates),  but  recom- 
mended, not  to  say  required,  by  the  employment  of  a  corresponding 
Hebrew  word  (V^te  from  Vtt;)a  to  resemble)  in  precisely  the  same 
way.  In  its  widest  sense,  a  para'ble  is  any  illustration  from  analogy, 
including  the  simile  and  metaphor  as  rhetorical  figures,  the  allegory, 
apologue,  fable,  and  some  forms  of  proveibial  expression.  In  a  more 
restricted  sense, the  word  denotes  an  illustration  of  moral  or  religious 
truth  derived  from  the  analogy  of  human  experience.  In  this  respect 
it  differs  from  the  fable,  which  accomplishes  the  same  end  by  employing 
the  supposed  acts  of  inferior  animals,  or  even  those  ascribed  to  inani- 
mate objects,  to  illustrate  human  character  and  conduct.  The  only  fa- 
bles found  in  Scripture,  those  of  Jotham  (Judg.  9,  8-15)  and  Joash 
(2  Kings  14,  9),  are  given  on  human,  not  divine  authority.  The  para- 
ble, in  its  more  restricted  sense,  as  just  explained,  is  not  necessarily 
narrative  in  form  (see  above,  on  2,  18-22),  much  less  fictitious,  although 
this  is  commonly  assumed  in  modern  definitions  of  the  term.  There  is 
good  reason  to  believe  that  all  the  parables  of  Christ  are  founded  in  fact, 
if  not  entirely  composed  of  real  incidents.  They  are  all  drawn  from 
familiar  forms  of  human  experience,  and  with  one  exception  from  the 
present  life.     This  creates  a  strong  presumption  that  the  facts  are  true, 


80  MARK  4,  2.  3. 

unless  there  be  some  positive  reason  for  supposing  them  fictitious. 
Now  the  necessity  of  fiction  to  ilhistrate  moral  truth  arises,  not  from 
the  deficiency  of  real  facts  adapted  to  the  purpose,  but  from  the  writer's 
limited  acquaintance  with  them,  and  his  consequent  incapacity  to  frame 
the  necessary  combinations,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of  his  imagina- 
tion. But  no  such  necessity  can  exist  in  the  case  of  an  inspired,  much 
less  of  an  omniscient  teacher.  To  resort  to  fiction,  therefore,  even  ad- 
mitting its  lawfulness  on  moral  grounds,  when  real  life  affords  in  such 
abundance  the  required  analogies,  would  be  a  gratuitous  preference,  if 
not  of  the  false  to  the  true,  at  least  of  the  imaginary  to  the  real,  which 
seems  unworthy  of  our  Lord,  or  which,  to  say  the  least,  we  have  no 
right  to  assume  without  necessity.  In  expounding  the  parables,  inter- 
preters have  gone  to  very  opposite  extremes,  but  most  to  that  of  mak- 
ing every  thing  significant,  or  giving  a  specific  sense  to  every  minute 
point  of  the  analogy  presented.  This  error  is  happily  exposed  by  Au- 
gustine, when  he  says,  that  the  whole  plough  is  needed  in  the  act  of 
ploughing,  though  the  ploughshare  alone  makes  the  furrow,  and  the 
whole  frame  of  an  instrument  is  useful,  though  the  strings  alone  pro- 
duce the  music.  The  other  extreme,  that  of  overlooking  or  denying 
the  significance  of  some  things  really  significant,  is  much  less  common 
than  the  lirst,  and  for  the  most  part  found  in  writers  of  severer 
taste  and  judgment.  The  true  mean  is  difficult  but  not  impossible  to 
find,  upon  the  principle  now  commonly  assumed  as  true,  at  least  in 
theory,  that  the  main  analogy  intended,  like  the  centre  of  a  circle,  must 
determine  the  position  of  all  points  in  the  circumference.  It  may  also 
be  observed,  that  as  the  same  illustration  may  legitimately  mean  more 
to  one  man  than  to  another,  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  their  im- 
aginative faculties,  it  is  highly  important  that,  in  attempting  to  deter- 
mine the  essential  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  parables,  we  should  not 
confound  what  they  may  possibly  be  made  to  mean,  with  what  they 
must  mean  to  attain  their  purpose.  In  addition  to  these  principles, 
arising  from  the  nature  of  the  parable  itself,  we  have  the  unspeal^able 
advajitage  of  our  Saviour's  own  example  as  a  self-interpreter.  In 
Ids  doctrine^  i.  e.  in  the  act  of  teaching,  or  perhaps  the  meaning  here 
may  Ije,  in  this  peculiar  mode  of  teaching.     (See  above,  on  1,  22-27.) 

3.  Hearken  ;  Behold,  there  went  out  a  sower  to  sow. 

Mark  has  preserved  one  introductory  ejaculation,  not  in  Luke, 
and  one  neither  in  Luke  nor  Matthew.  Hear !  impljdng  the  power 
and  intention  to  communicate  something  particularly  Avorthy  of  atten- 
tion. This  word,  perhaps  a  part  of  Peter's  vivid  recollection,  may  be 
said  to  introduce  the  whole  succession  of  our  Saviour's  parables. 
Behold  /  (1  Matt.  13,  3),  lo,  see,  in  one  or  two  specific  cases,  but  in- 
tended, no  doubt,  as  a  model  and  a  guide  in  others  (see  below,  on  vs. 
10-20),  both  in  Hebrew  and  Hellenistic  usage,  introduces  something 
unexpected  and  surprising.  Some  take  it  even  in  its  primary  and  strict 
sense,  look  !  see  there  !  implying  that  the  object  indicated  was  in  sight 
or  actually  visible  j  in  other  words,  that  Christ  was  led  to  use  this  illus- 


MARK  4.  3.  4.  87 

tration  by  tlic  casual  appearance  of  a  soAver  in  a  neighbouring  field  ;  and 
this  is  often  represented  as  the  usual  occasion  of  his  parabolic  teachings. 
It  seems,  however,  to  regard  them  as  too  purely  accidental,  and  too 
little  the  result  of  a  deliberate  predetermination,  such  as  we  cannot  but 
assume  in  the  practice  of  a  divine  teacher.  A  safer  form  of  the  same 
proposition  is  tlie  one  already  stated  in  a  difterent  connection  (see 
above,  on  v,  1),  namely,  that  our  Saviour's  pai-ables,  though  not  inva- 
riably suggested  by  immediate  sights  or  passing  scenes,  aie  all  derived 
from  the  analogy  of  human  experience,  and  in  most  instances  of  com- 
mon life.  Thus  the  three  here  given  by  jNIark  are  designed  not  only 
to  exhibit  different  aspects  of  the  same  great  subject,  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  but  to  exhibit  them  by  means  of  images  dei'ived  from  one 
mode  of  life  or  occupation,  that  of  husbandry,  with  which  his  auditors 
were  all  famiHar,  and  in  which,  most  probably,  the  greater  part  of  them 
were  constantly  engaged.  But  besides  these  objections  to  the  general 
supposition  that  our  Saviour's  parables  were  all  suggested  casually,  such 
an  assumption  is  forbidden  in  the  case  before  us  by  the  form  of  expres- 
sion used  by  all  these  evangelists  with  striking  uniformity.  It  is  not  as 
it  naturall}'  would  be  on  the  supposition  now  in  question,  See,  a  sower 
goes  (or  going)  out^  but  with  the  article,  and  in  the  aorist  or  past  tense, 
Zo,  tlie  sower  went  out.  The  sower,  like  tlte  Fox  and  the  Lion  in  a  fable,  is 
generic,  meaning  the  whole  class,  or  an  ideal  individual  who  represents 
it.  Went  out.  as  we  say  in  colloquial  narrative,  once  upon  a  time,  the 
precise  date  being  an  ideal  one  because  the  act  is  one  of  constant  occur- 
rence. As  if  he  had  said,  '  a  sower  went  out  to  sow,  as  you  have  often 
done  and  seen  your  neighbour  do.'  I'o  sow,  distinguishes  his  going  out 
for  this  specific  purpose  from  his  going  out  on  other  errands.  The 
sower  went  out  as  such,  as  a  sower,  to  perform  the  function  which  the 
name  denotes. 

4.  And  it  came  to  pass  as  lie  sowed,  some  fell  by  the 

way -side,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air  came  and  devoured 

it  up. 

It  came  to  pass,  or  something  happened,  implying  something  not 
indeed  uncommon,  but  yet  not  belonging  as  of  course  to  the  process 
of  sowing  seed.  As  he  sowed,  literally,  in  the  (act  of)  sowing,  and 
therefore  in  the  field,  not  merely  on  the  way  to  it.  By  the  icay  must 
therefore  mean  along  the  path  trodden  by  the  sower  himself  and  hard- 
ened by  his  footsteps,  not  along  the  highway  leading  to  his  place  of 
labour.  This  idea  is  distinctly  expressed  by  Luke  (8,  5),  and  it  was 
trodden  down,  i.  e.  it  fell  upon  the  path  where  he  was  walking.  Some 
is  understood  by  every  reader  to  mean  some  of  the  seed  which  he  was 
sowing,  the  noun,  although  not  previously  mentioned  as  it  is  in  Luke 
(8,  4),  being  necessarily  suggested  by  the  kindred  verb,  to  sow,  in  sow- 
ing. The  principal  circumstance  in  this  part  of  the  parable  is  not  the 
treading  of  the  seed,  which  Luke  only  adds  to  specify  the  place,  but  its 
lying  exposed  upon  the  trodden  path,  and  there  devoured  by  the  birds. 
Fowlj  now  confined  to  certain  species  of  domesticated  birds,  is  co-exten- 


88  MARX  4,  4.  5.  6. 

sive  in  old  English  with  lird  itself.  Of  the  air,  literally  of  heaven,  a 
Hebrew  idiom,  according  to  which  heaven  (or  heavens,  see  above  on  1, 
10),  is  applied,  not  only  to  the  whole  material  universe,  except  the 
earth  (Gen.  1,  1)  and  especially  to  that  part  of  it  regarded  as  the 
more  immediate  residence  of  God  (Gen.  19,  24),  but  also  to  the  visible 
expanse  or  firmament  (Gen.  1,  14),  and  to  our  atmosphere,  or  rather 
to  the  whole  space  between  us  and  the  heavenly  bodies  (Gen.  1.  20.) 
The  version,  therefore,  is  substantially  correct,  supposing  these  words 
(rod  ovpavov)  to  be  genuine;  but  the  latest  critics  have  expunged 
them  as  a  probable  assimilation  to  the  text  of  Luke  (8,  5)  :  nothing 
more  is  here  intended  by  the  phrase  than  iirds  in  general,  or  the  iirds 
which  his  hearers  well  knew  were  accustomed  to  commit  such  depre- 
dations. The  familiarity  of  this  occurrence,  and  of  those  which  follow, 
must  have  brought  the  illustration  home  to  the  business  and  bosoms 
of  the  humblest  hearers,  and,  at  the  same  time,  necessarily  precludes 
the  idea  of  a  fiction,  when  real  facts  were  so  abundant  and  accessible. 
It  is  idle  to  object  that  this  particular  sower  never  did  go  forth,  when 
the  opposite  assertion  can  as  easily  be  made,  and  when  the  terms  em- 
ployed, as  we  have  seen,  may  designate  the  whole  class  of  sowers, 
including  multitudes  of  individuals,  or  any  of  these  whom  any  one  of 
the  hearers  might  select  as  particularly  meant,  perhaps  himself,  per- 
haps some  neighbouring  husbandman.  Such  a  use  of  language,  when 
applied  to  incidents  of  every-day  occurrence,  is  as  far  as  possible 
remote  from  fiction. 

5.  And  some  fell  on  stony  ground,  where  it  had  not 

much  eartli ;  and  immediately  it  sprang  up,  because  it 

had  no  depth  of  eartli : 

Another  (seed,  or  portion  of  the  seed  sown)  fell  upon  the  stony  (or 
rocky  soil),  collective  singulars  equivalent  to  Matthew's  plurals  (13, 
5.)  The  reference  is  not  to  loose  or  scattered  stones  (see  below,  on 
5,  5),  but  to  a  thin  soil  overspreading  a  stratum  or  layer  of  concealed 
rock.  Immediately,  here  used  by  Matthew  also,  is  emphatic,  the  rapid 
germination  being  a  material  circumstance,  and  seemingly  ascribed  to 
the  shallowness  of  the  soil,  allowing  the  seed  no  room  to  strike  deep 
root,  but  only  to  spring  upwards.  The  same  idea  is  suggested  by  the 
verb  itself,  a  double  compound  meaning  to  spring  up  and  forth.  The 
cause  assigned  by  Luke  (8.  0),  is  not  that  of  the  speedy  germination, 
but  of  the  premature  decay  that  followed  it,  as  Mark  describes  more 
fully  in  the  next  verse. 

6.  But  when  the  sun  was  up,  it  was  scorched ;  and 
because  it  had  no  root,  it  withered  away. 

When  the  sun  was  up  (or  riseti),  is  the  literal  translation  of  the 
text  adopted  by  the  latest  critics,  while  the  common  or  received  text, 
though  the  same  in  meaning,  has  a  different  construction,  the  sun  having 
risen.     There  is  a  peculiar  beauty  in  the  Greek  here,  which  cannot  be 


MARK  4,  6.  7.  8.  89 

retained  in  a  translation,  arising  from  the  use  of  the  same  verb  (bat  in 
a  less  emphatic  form)  to  signify  the  rising  of  the  plant  and  of  the  sun, 
as  both  are  said  in  English  to  be  iip^  when  one  is  above  the  surface  of 
the  earth  and  the  other  above  the  horizon.  ScorcJied  (or  burnt)  and 
withered  (or  dried,  see  above,  on  3,  1),  are  different  effects  ascribed 
to  different  causes.  The  first  is  the  evaporation  of  the  vital  sap  or 
vegetable  juices  by  the  solar  heat ;  the  other  their  spontaneous  failure 
from  the  want  of  a  tenacious  root.  Together  they  describe,  in  a  man- 
ner at  once  accurate  and  simple,  the  natural  and  necessarj^  fate  of  a 
plant  without  sufficient  depth  of  soil,  however  quick  and  even  prema- 
ture its  vegetation. 

7.  And  some  fell  among  thorns,  and  tlie  thorns  grew 
np,  and  choked  it,  and  it  yielded  no  frnit. 

Another^  as  in  v.  5.  Into  tlie  thorns,  or  in  the  midst  of  them,  as  it  is 
more  fully  expressed  by  Luke  (8,  7.)  The  thorns,  which  happened  to 
be  growing  there,  or  which  are  usually  found  in  such  situations. 
Came  vp,  appeared  above  the  surface,  an  expression  constantly  em- 
ployed in  English  to  denote  the  same  thing.  ChoA:ed,  stifled,  or 
deprived  of  life  by  pressure.  This  word,  though  strictly  applicable 
only  to  the  suffocation  of  animal  or  human  subjects  (see  Luke  8,  42), 
is  here  by  a  natural  and  livel}^  figure  transferred  to  the  fatal  influence 
on  vegetable  life  of  too  close  contact  with  a  different  and  especially  a 
ranker  growth.  ^Matthew  (13,  7)  uses  a  still  more  emphatic  compound 
of  the  same  verb,  corresponding  to  our  own  familiar  phrase  choked  off. 
And  fruit  did  not  give,  though  implied  in  all,  is  expressed  only  in 
Mark's  account,  which  throughout  this  parable  exhibits  no  appearance 
of  abridgment. 

8.  And  other  fell  on  good  gronnd,  and  did  yield  frnit 
that  sprang  np,  and  increased,  and  bronght  forth,  some 
thirty,  and  some  sixty,  and  some  an  hnndred. 

Another,  as  in  vs.  5.  7.  It  is  a  minute  but  striking  proof  that  the 
evangelists  wrote  independently  of  each  other,  and  that  their  coin- 
cidence of  language  arose  not  from  mutual  imitation,  but  from  same- 
ness of  original  material,  that  in  these  three  verses  Matthew  al- 
ways says  ujion  {eni),  Mark  i?ito  or  among  (els.)  Good  ground,  in 
Greek,  the  earth,  the  good,  earth  or  soil  properly  so  called  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  beaten,  rocky,  thorny  places  before  mentioned.  Gave 
fruit  coming  up  and  groicing,  the  fruit  or  ripe  grain  being  represented 
as  passing  through  the  changes  which  are  really  experienced  in  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  vegetable  process.  Bore,  the  same  idea  that  was 
before  expressed  by  gave,  the  latter  having  more  explicit  reference  to 
the  use  and  wants  of  men,  the  former  to  production  in  itself  considered. 
What  the  seed  hore,  whether  reaped  or  not,  it  yielded  o\\\y  on  the 
former  supposition.  One.  i.  e.  one  seed,  the  proportion  stated  being 
that  of  the  seed  sown  to  the  ripe  grain  harvested.     As  the  Greek  nu- 


90  MAEK  4,  8.  9.  10. 

meral  (ep)  here  rendered  one  is  distinguished  from  the  preposition  in 
(cV)  by  nothing  but  its  accent  and  its  aspiration,  which  are  not  given 
in  the  oldest  copies,  one  distinguished  modern  critic  substitutes  the 
latter,  in  thirty  and  in  sixti/.  i.  e.  in  this  ratio  or  proportion,  and  an- 
other gives  as  the  most  ancient  text  a  different  preposition  (els),  mean- 
ing to  (i.  e.  to  the  amount  of)  thirty,  sixty,  and  a.hundred.  The  pro- 
ductiveness ascribed  to  the  nutritious  grains  in  this  place  is  by  no 
means  unexampled  either  in  ancient  or  in  modern  times.  It  is  indeed 
a  moderate  and  modest  estimate  coni[)ared  with  some  recorded  by 
Herodotus,  in  which  the  rate  of  increase  was  double  or  quadruple  even 
the  highest  of  the  three  here  mentioned,  and  the  recent  harvest  in  our 
western  states  alfords  examples  of  increase  still  greater. 

9.  And  lie  said  unto  them,  lie  that  hath  ears  to  hear, 

let  him  hear. 

This  idiomatic  and  proverbial  formula,  like  many  others  of  perpet- 
ual occurrence  in  our  Lord's  discourses,  is  never  simply  pleonastic  or 
unmeaning,  as  the  vary  repetition  often  tempts  us  to  imagine.  On 
the  contrary,  such  j^hrases  are  invariably  solemn  and  emphatic  warn- 
ings that  the  things  in  question  are  of  the  most  momentous  import, 
and  entitled  to  most  serious  attention.  They  appear  to  have  been 
framed  or  adopted  b}^  the  Saviour,  to  be  used  on  various  occasions  and 
in  the  pauses  of  his  different  discourses.  There  is  something  eminently 
simple  and  expressive  in  the  one  before  us,  which  involves  rebuke  as 
well  as  exhortation.  '  Why  should  you  have  the  sense  of  hearing,  if 
you  do  not  use  it  now  ?  To  what  advantage  can  }' ou  ever  listen,  if 
you  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  these  admonitions  ?  Now,  now.  if  ever,  he  who 
can  hear  must  hear,  or  incur  the  penalty  of  inattention  I '  But  besides 
the  importance  of  the  subject  and  the  juncture,  it  is  here  suggested 
that  the  very  form  of  tha  communication  calls  for  close  attention,  in 
default  of  which  it  can  impart  no  knowledge  and  confer  no  benefit. 
This  may  be  understood  as  having  reference  to  the  parabolic  method 
of  instruction  which  our  Saviour  now  began  and  afterwards  continued 
to  employ  so  freel}'.     (See  below,  on  v.  11.) 

10.  And  when  he  was  alone,  the}^  that  w^ere  about 
him,  with  the  twelve,  asked  of  him  the  parable. 

Alone,  not  absolutely  but  comparatively,  by  himself,  in  private, 
free  from  the  pressure  of  the  crowd,  surrounded  only  by  disciples, 
not  in  the  strict  sense  of  apostles,  but  in  that  of  friendly  hearers  and 
adherents.  This  is  clear  from  Mark's  description,  those  aloiit  him  with 
the  t'lcelre,  i.  e.  those  who  in  addition  the  twelve  were  in  habitual  at- 
tendance on  his  person,  following  him  from  place  to  place ;  or  those 
who,  upon  this  particular  occasion,  still  remained  about  him  after  the 
dispersion  of  the  multitude.  Explained  in  either  way,  the  words  are 
probably  descriptive  of  the  same  class,  and  imply  that  what  now  fol- 
lows was  addressed  neither  to  the  vast  mixed  multitude,  nor  to  the 


MARK  4,  10.  11.  91 

twelve  apostles  only,  but  to  an  intermediate  body,  smaller  than  the 
first  and  larc-er  than  the  •  second,  but  composed  entireh^  of  disciples 
(Matt.  13, 10.  Luke  8,  9)  or  believers  in  his  doctrine.  Asked  him  of 
tJie  parable^  in  Greek,  asled  1dm  the  parahle  itself,  a  pregnant  phrase 
resolved  by  Luke  and  INIatthew  into  two  distinct  inquiries,  first,  the 
general  one,  why  he  taught  in  parables  at  all  (jNlatt.  13, 10),  and  then, 
the  more  specific  one,  what  this  first  parable  was  meant  to  teach  (Luke 
8,  9.)  It  is  observable  that  Mark,  although  he  gives  the  question  in  a 
single  form,  and  that  a  vague  one,  gives  the  answers  to  the  two  inqui- 
ries really  involved  in  it ;  a  circumstance  which  all  but  hypercritical 
sceptics  will  regard  not  as  discrepancy  but  agreement.  The  question 
thus  interpreted  shows  that  the  parabolic  method  of  instruction,  as 
applied  now  for  the  first  time  to  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom,  was  ob- 
scure or  unintelHgible  even  to  the  more  enlightened  of  our  Saviour's 
hearers ;  a  deficienc}^  which  furnished  the  occasion  of  his  own  author- 
itative exposition,  making  known  not  only  the  precise  sense  of  the 
parable  to  which  it  was  immediately  applied,  but  also  the  more  gen- 
eral principles  and  laws  which  are  to  govern  the  interpretation  of  all 
others. 

11.  And  lie  said  unto  them.  Unto  yon  it  is  given  to 

know  tlie  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  God  :  but  unto  them 

that  are  without,  all  (these)  things  are  done  in  parables  : 

We  have  here  the  answer  to  the  first  inquiry  really  involved  in 
that  which  Mark  records  (in  v.  10)  and  more  distinctly  stated  else- 
where (Matt.  13,10),  namely, -^vhy  he  spake  in  parables  at  all.  In 
answer  to  this  question,  he  informs  them  that  a  sifting,  separating  pro- 
cess had  begun  already  and  must  be  continued,  with  the  unavoidable 
eifect  of  throwing  all  his  hearers  into  two  great  classes,  those  unthin 
and  those  icithout  the  maoic  circle  of  his  enlighteninji:  and  saving  in- 
fluence.  The  difference  between  these  classes  was  not  one  of  personal 
intrinsic  merit,  but  of  divine  favour.  To  you  it  has  heen  given,  the 
perfect  passive  form,  impljnng  an  authoritative  predetermination,  being 
common  to  all  three  accounts,  as  in  our  Lord's  assurance  to  the  para- 
lytic. Thy  sins  have  heen  forgiven  thee  (see  above,  on  2,  5.)  Given^ 
not  conceded  as  a  right,  but  granted  as  a  favour.  To  Jcnoiv,  i.  e.  di- 
rectly, by  explicit  statement,  either  without  the  veil  of  parable,  or 
^vith  the  aid  of  an  infallible  interpretation.  Mysteries,  in  the  usual 
sense  of  that  word  as  employed  in  scripture  to  denote,  not  the  intrinsic 
nature  of  the  things  so  called,  but  merely  their  concealment  from  the 
human  mind  until  disclosed  by  revelation.  The  mystery  in  this  sense 
here  particularly  meant  is  that  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  be  erected 
by  Messiah  in  the  heart  of  man  and  of  society,  and  to  receive  its  final 
consummation  in  a  future  state  of  glory.  The  use  of  this  expression 
(of  the  lingdom),  common  to  all  three  accounts  (see  Matt.  13,11. 
Luke  8,  10),  is  not  without  importance,  as  evincing  that  the  parables 
of  Christ  had  reference,  not  merely  to  personal  duty  and  improve- 
ment, but  to  the  nature  of  his  kingdom  and  the  mode  of  its  establish- 


92  MARK  4,  11.  12. 

ment,  a  reference  too  often  overlooked  or  sacrificed  to  mere  individual 
edification.  To  those  loitliout  the  sphere  or  scope  of  this  illuminating 
influence.  All  tilings  {these  is  omitted  by  the  latest  critics),  i.  c.  all 
things  of  the  kind  in  question,  namely,  all  communications  and  in- 
structions in  relation  to  Messiah's  kingdom.  Are  done,  take  place, 
happen,  an  expression  also  used  by  Herodotus  in  reference  to  dis- 
course or  teaching.  In  parahles^  obviously  implying  that  this  mode 
of  exhibition  might  be  used  to  veil  and  to  obscure  as  well  as  to  eluci- 
date the  same  things,  but  to  different  hearers  or  spectators.  This 
darkening  influence  of  parabolic  teaching  is  assumed  in  this  place,  as  a 
fact  sufficiently  implied  in  the  inquiry  which  our  Lord  was  answering, 
and  not  explained  till  afterwards.     (See  below,  on  vs.  24.  25.) 

12.  That  seeing  tliey  may  see,  and  not  perceive  ;  and 

hearing  they  may  hear,  and  not  understand  ;  lest  at  any 

time  they  should  be  converted,  and  (their)  sins  should  he 

forgiven  them. 

Thus  far  it  might  have  seemed  that  this  obtuseness  of  the  masses 
to  divine  instruction  was  a  mere  misfortune,  having  no  connection  with 
their  moral  character  and  state.  But  now  the  Saviour  represents  it 
as  the  consequence  of  sin,  left  by  God  in  his  righteousness  to  operate 
unchecked  in  one  class,  but  gratuitously  counteracted  in  another.  The 
expressions  here  are  borrowed  from  that  fearful  picture  of  judicial 
blindness  in  Isaiah  G,  10.  Matthew's  quotation  (13, 14. 15)  is  more 
full  and  formal.  Luke's  (8, 10)  even  more  concise  than  that  of  Mark. 
Common  to  all,  and  therefore  to  be  reckoned  the  essential  part  of  the 
quotation,  are  the  words,  that  seeing  they  might  see,  and  hearing  might 
not  understand.  To  see  and  not  see,  hear  and  not  hear,  was  a  para- 
doxical Greek  proverb,  used  by  Demosthenes  and  ^sch^ius  to  signify 
a  mere  external  sensuous  perception  without  intellectual  or  moral  con- 
viction. Luke  gives  it  nearly  in  its  classical  form,  while  Mark  retains 
the  Hebrew  idiom  of  using  two  forms  of  the  same  verb  for  intensity 
or  more  precise  specification.  Seeing  indeed,  or  seeing  still,  continu- 
ing to  see,  or  seeing  clearly,  so  far  as  concerns  the  outward  object. 
And  not  2)erceice,  with  the  mind  or  heart.  The  Greek  verbs  might  be 
also  rendered  look  and  see.  Hearing  might  hear,  i.  e.  distinctly,  con- 
stantly, again,  or  still.  And  not  iinderstand  {or  fv^^tvohewd)  the  things 
heard  in  their  spiritual  import.  ]\Iark  adds  from  Isaiah  the  judicial 
end  or  purpose  of  their  being  thus  abandoned,  lest  at  any  time  (or 
some  time)  they  should  turn  (to  God,  or,  as  it  is  passively  expressed, 
be  converted),  a  familiar  scriptural  expression  for  that  total  change  of 
character  and  conduct,  heart  and  life,  which  is  essential  to  salvation. 
And  the  sins  (of  which  they  have  been  guilty)  he  remitted  (left  un- 
punished, pardoned),  is  the  sense  but  not  the  form  of  the  original  ex- 
pression, here  retained  by  Matthew  (13, 15),  and  representing  sin  as  a 
disease,  of  M'hich  God  heals  men  b}'  forgiving  them.  (Compare  Ps. 
41,  4.  Jcr.  3,  22.  Hos.  14,4.  1  Pet.  2,  24.)  The  clause  here  quoted  is 
derived,  with  little  variation,  from  the  Septuagint  version  of  Isaiah. 


MARK  4,  13.  14.  93 


13.  And  he  said  unto  tliem,  Know  ye  not  this  para- 
ble ?  and  how  then  will  ye  know  all  parables  ? 

And  lie  says  to  them,  a  common  form,  especially  in  Mark  (see  above, 
on  3.  25.  27).  to  indicate  a  change  of  subject  in  the  same  discourse,  or  at 
least  a  transition  from  one  part  of  the  same  topic  to  another.  So  in  this 
case,  having  answered  the  first  question  latent  in  the  statement  that 
they  asl-ed  him  (of)  the  parahJe^  to  wit,  the  question  why  he  spoke  in 
parables  at  all  (see  Matt.  13, 10),  he  proceeds  to  answer  the  other, 
namely,  what  he  meant  to  teach  b}^  this  one  in  particnlar  (see  Luke  8, 
9.)  Before  explaining  it,  however,  he  propounds  a  preliminary  ques- 
tion, which  has  been  differentl}^  understood.  Some  make  it  an  expres- 
sion of  displeasure  and  surprise  that  they  should  need  his  explanation 
of  so  clear  a  matter.  But  as  this  is  inconsistent  with  his  own  ascrip- 
tion of  an  obscuring  power  to  this  method  of  instruction  (see  above,  on 
v.  11),  the  words  are  rather  to  be  taken  as  a  concession  of  the  fact  that 
they  could  not  be  expected  to  understand  this  or  other  parables,  with- 
out at  least  some  general  idea  of  the  principles  on  which  they  were  to 
be  expounded.  As  if  he  had  said, '  you  find  that  you  cannot  understand 
this  parable  without  assistance  ?  how  then  will  you  understand  the 
rest  unaided  ?  '  The  necessity  suggested  is  not  that  of  a  particular 
elucidation  to  be  added  to  each  parable  as  it  was  uttered,  although  this 
was  often  actually  given  (see  below,  on  v.  34),  but  of  a  general  and 
comprehensive  key  to  the  whole  series  of  his  parabolic  teachings.  Such 
a  key  might  be  furnished  in  either  of  two  ways,  hj  a  series  of  general 
and  abstract  rules  applying  to  all  parables,  or  by  a  few  examples  set- 
ting forth  the  same  laws  in  a  concrete,  practical,  experimental  manner. 
While  the  former  might  have  met  the  wants  or  gratified  the  wishes  of 
a  body  of  philosophers,  the  latter  was  undoubtedly  best  suited  to  the 
actual  condition  and  necessities  of  Christ's  immediate  hearers  ;  and  we 
find  accordingly  that  he  adopts  it,  by  expounding  two  of  his  first  para- 
bles (the  Sower  and  the  Tares)  upon  the  same  day  that  he  uttered 
them  and  in  the  presence  of  his  own  disciples  (see  above,  on  v.  10.) 
Matthew  has  preserved  both  these  invaluable  expositions  (13,  18-23. 
36-60),  Mark  and  Luke  (8,  11-15)  only  that  of  the  Sower,  which  is  suf- 
ficient of  itself  to  teach  the  fundamental  principles  of  parabolical  inter- 
pretation. It  is  impossible  to  overrate  the  value  of  this  clew  to  guide 
us  through  the  labyrinth  of  various  and  discordant  expositions,  or  its 
actual  effect,  when  faithfully  employed,  in  guarding  the  interpreter 
against  the  opposite  extremes  of  meagre  generality  and  fanciful  mi- 
nuteness. It  was  not  only  placed  here  in  the  history,  but  uttered 
when  it  was,  that  it  might  serve  as  an  example  and  a  model  in  inter- 
preting those  parables  which  Christ  has  not  explained  himself  Some 
of  the  errors  thus  forbidden  and  condemned,  if  not  prevented,  will  be 
noticed  in  expounding  the  ensuing  verses. 

14.  The  sower  soweth  the  word. 

Human  expounders,  unchecked  by  our  Lord's  example  and  author- 
ity, would  no  doubt  have  begun  with  something  more  specific  and 


94  MARK  4,  14.  15.  IC. 


minute,  such  as  the  quantity  and  kind  of  seed,  the  place  and  mode  of 
sowing,  the  significance  belonging  to  the  act  of  going  forth,  &c.  But 
the  Saviour  teaches  us  to  strike  at  once  at  the  essential  likeness  or 
analogy  which  governs  and  determines  all  the  minor  correspondences. 
The  sower  (or  one  sowing)  soirs  tlie  icord,  i.  e.  the  word  of  God  (Luke 
8, 11),  or  more  specifically  still,  the  tcord  (or  doctrine^  of  the  Tcingdom 
(see  above,  on  v.  11.)  This  expression  shows  that  our  Lord's  prhnary 
design  in  these  instructions  was  not  merely  a  generic  one,  including  all 
the  cases  that  can  possibly  arise  in  the  experience  of  men,  but  a  specific 
one,  relating  to  the  wants  and  dangers  of  his  own  immediate  hearers, 
the  contemporary  generation,  among  whom  the  advent  of  Messiah  and 
his  kingdom  had  been  lately  preached,  and  the  kingdom  itself  was  to 
be  founded. 

1 5.  And  these  are  they  by  the  way-side,  where  tlie 

word  is  sown  ;  but  when  they  have  heard,  Satan  cometli 

immediately,  and  taketh  away  the  word  that  was  sown  in 

their  hearts. 

These  are  those  along  the  icay,  i.  e.  the  characters  about  to  be  de- 
scribed are  those  whose  case  is  represented  by  the  falling  of  the  seed 
upon  the  path.  The  incongruity,  alleged  by  some,  of  making  the  seed 
represent  the  man,  and  not  the  word  as  just  explained  (v.  14),  is  a 
mere  rhetorical  punctilio,  and  presents  no  difficulty  to  the  mind  of  any 
unbiassed  reader.  The  parable  has  answered  its  design  for  ages,  not- 
withstanding this  alleged  flaw  in  its  imagery,  which  probably  occurs 
to  none  but  hypercritics.  Where^  i.  e.  on  the  path  and  in  the  ears  of 
those  whose  case  is  represented  by  it.  Tlie  word  is  sown^  a  mixture  of 
the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  producing  no  confusion,  and  objection- 
able only  on  the  ground  of  rhetorical  preciseness.  When  they  (the 
persons  represented  in  this  portion  of  the  parable)  hear  (or  have  heard) 
the,  word  (just  represented  as  seed  sown),  immediately  comes  Satan 
(or  the  adversary),  elsewhere  called  the  Devil  (Luke  8,  12),  and  the 
Evil  One  (Matt.  13, 19.)  TaJces  iq:)  and  aicay^  in  reference  to  the  pick- 
ing up  of  grain  by  birds  (see  above,  on  v.  4.)  Soicn  in  their  hearts^ 
another  mixture  of  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  as  harmless  as  the 
other,  because  after  the  equivalents  have  been  determined,  they  become 
convertible  without  confusion.  The  influence  here  ascribed  to  Satan 
must  be  strictly  understood  as  really  exerted  by  him  in  the  case  of 
those  who  hear  the  word,  but  only  as  a  persuasive,  not  a  coercive 
power,  and  therefore  exercised  by  turning  the  attention  from  the  word 
as  soon  as  uttered,  and  diverting  it  to  other  objects. 

IG.  And  these  are  they  likewise  which  are  sown  on 
stony  ground  ;  who,  when  they  have  heard  the  word,  im- 
mediately receive  it  with  gladness. 

lie  now  identifies  the  second  class  of  fruitless  and  unprofitable  hear- 
ers, those  represented  in  the  parable  by  the  falling  of  the  seed  on  stony 


MARK  4,  IG.  17.  95 

places.  Here  again  he  seems  to  make  the  seed  the  emblem  of  the  man 
himself,  and  not  of  the  word  preached  to  him,  but  with  as  little  disad- 
vantage to  the  force  and  clearness  of  the  illustration  as  before,  and  in 
the  exercise  of  that  discretionar}^  license  which  distinguishes  original 
and  independent  thinkers,  even  among  mere  men,  from  the  grammari- 
ans and  rhetoricians.  Every  ordinary  reader  understands  without  in- 
struction that  those  sown  upon  the  rocl-y  (jjlaccs)  means  those  whose 
character  and  state  are  represented  by  the  falling  of  the  seed  upon  the 
rock,  and  not  that  the  seed  itself  specifically  represents  the  persons. 
LUceicise^  in  the  same  way  as  before,  this  portion  of  the  parable,  like 
that  preceding  it,  exhibits  a  distinct  class  of  hearers,  and  the  influence 
exerted  on  them  by  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom.  The  difference 
between  the  cases  is  that  these  go  further,  and  not  only  hear  the  word, 
or  passively  receive  it,  but  accept  it  as  the  word  of  God,  and  that  not 
merely  with  a  cold  assent  or  forced  submission,  but  with  jo}-,  as  some- 
thing addressed  to  the  affections,  no  less  than  the  reason  and  the  con- 
science, and  received  accordingly,  at  once,  immediately^  which,  though 
a  favourite  of  Mark,  as  we  have  seen  above  (on  1,  10.  18,  31.  40.  2,  2. 
3,  6).  is  here  attested  as  a  genuine  expression,  not  by  his  report  alone, 
which  would  have  been  sufficient  for  the  purpose,  but  by  that  of  Mat- 
thew (13,  20.)  The  obvious  gradation  in  the  parable  not  only  renders 
it  more  perfect  in  a  literary  point  of  view,  but  increases  its  discrimi- 
nating power  as  applied  to  individual  and  general  experience,  so  that 
every  class  of  hearers,  even  now,  and  still  more  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
might  see  itself  as  in  a  mirror.  Indeed,  nothing  shows  the  wisdom  of 
our  Lord's  instructions  more  impressively  than  the  fact,  confirmed  by 
all  experience  for  1800  years,  and  receiving  further  confirmation  every 
day,  that  all  varieties  of  human  and  religious  character  may  be  reduced 
to  some  one  or  more  of  his  simple  but  divine  descriptions. 

17.  And.  have  no  root  in  themselves,  and  so  endure 

but  for  a  time  :  afterward,  when  affliction  or  persecution 

ariseth  for  the  word's  sake,  immediately  they  are  offended. 

While  the  first  seed  was  not  even  buried,  but  removed  while  on  the 
surface,  the  second  was  not  onl}^  sown,  but  came  up  prematurely  and 
without  a  root,  which  same  expression  our  Lord  now  applies  to  the 
class  here  represented,  namely,  those  tcho  have  no  root  in  themselves, 
i.  e.  what  in  our  religious  phraseology  (here  founded  upon  Job  19,  28) 
is  called  "  the  root  of  the  matter."  i.  e,  a  principle  of  true  religion,  in- 
cluding or  impljing  faith,  repentance,  and  the  love  of  God,  producing 
an  analogous  external  life.  This  shows  in  what  sense  Luke  describes 
them  (8,  13)  as  believing  for  a  while,  i.  e.  professing  or  appearing  to 
believe  while  really  without  the  root  of  true  conviction  and  conversion. 
Mark  expresses  the  same  thing  more  concisely  in  a  single  word,  tem- 
iwrary^  made  up  of  the  noun  and  preposition  here  employed  by  Luke, 
and  elsewhere  rendered  temporal  (2  Cor.  4,  18,  as  opposed  to  eternal)^ 
or  paraphrased,  for  a  season  (Heb.  11,  25.)  Then^  afterwards,  or  after 
this  ostensible  conversion.     Distress  or  ijersecution^  kindi'ed  but  dis- 


%  MARK  4,  17.  18.  19. 

tinct  terms,  one  originally  signifying  pressure,  and  the  other  piirsuit^ 
the  former  comprehending  providential  chastisements,  the  other  de- 
noting more  specifically  evils  inflicted  by  the  hands  oF  human  enemies. 
For  (because  or  on  account  of)  the  irord,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  king- 
dom, which  they  had  so  joyfully  embraced,  and  for  a  time  so  openly 
maintained.  Ariseth  is  in  Greek  an  absolute  construction,  being,  be- 
ginning to  be,  coming  to  pass,  happening.  Immediately  again,  both  in 
Mark  and  Matthew  (13,  21),  but  with  a  difference  of  form  {^{(jus  and 
fi-Secos-),  the  repetition  showing  that  the  real  change  for  the  worse 
is  as  sudden  and  as  easy  as  the  apparent  change  for  the  better.  Of- 
fended, not  in  the  ordinary  modern  sense  of  being  disj^leased  or  alien- 
ated in  affection,  but  in  the  Latin  and  old  English  sense  of  stumbling 
or  being  made  to  stumble.  The  nearest  root  or  theme  to  which  it  can 
be  traced  in  classic  Greek,  denotes  a  trap  or  snare,  but  in  the  Hellen- 
istic dialect  a  stumbling-block  or  any  hindrance  in  the  path,  over  which 
one  may  fall.  In  like  manner  the  derivative  verb  means  to  make  one 
fall  or  stumble,  a  natural  figure  both  for  sin  and  error,  and  often  repre- 
senting both  as  commonly  connected  in  exi^erience.  Another  expla- 
nation of  the  usage,  leading  to  the  same  result,  gives  offend,  its  modern 
sense,  but  in  reference  to  God,  to  offend  whom  is  to  sin,  and  then  takes 
the  verb  here  in  a  causative  sense,  they  are  made  to  sin,  or  betrayed 
into  sinning  against  God.  As  the  sin  here  meant  is  not  such  as  even 
true  believers  may  commit,  but  one  arising  from  the  absence  of  a  root 
in  the  experience,  Luke  (8,  13)  describes  it  by  the  stronger  term, 
apostatize  (or  fall  away),  not  from  a  previous  state  of  grace  or  true 
conversion,  which  Avould  imply  the  very  thing  explicitly  denied  in  the 
preceding  clause,  to  wit,  the  possession  of  a  root,  but  from  their  osten- 
sible and  false  profession. 

18.  And  tliose  are  they  wliicli  are  sown  among  tliorns ; 
sucli  as  liear  the  word, 

19.  And  tlie  cares  of  this  woi'hl,  and  the  deceitfnlness 
of  riches,  and  the  Insts  of  other  tilings  entering  in,  choke 
the  w^ord,  and  it  becometh  unfrnitfnl. 

And  others  (or  another  class  of  fruitless  hearers  represented  in  this 
parable)  are  those  soicn  among  the  thorns,  i.  e.  those  whose  case  is 
symbolized, or  emblematically  set  forth  by  the  falling  of  a  portion  of 
the  seed  among  thorns.  The  form  of  expression  is  the  same  as  in  vs. 
15.  16,  and  is  uniform  in  all  the  gospels,  a  sufficient  proof  that  it  is 
not  an  inadvertence  or  mistake  of  the  historian,  but  at  least  in  sub- 
stance a  deliberate  expression  of  our  Lord  himself.  Common  to  this 
with  the  other  classes  here  described  is  the  hearing  of  the  word,  be- 
cause the  very  purpose  of  the  parable  is  to  exhibit  different  ways  in 
which  it  may  be  heard  with  the  effect  upon  the  hearer.  Some  suppose 
the  climax  or  gradation  to  he  here  continued,  and  this  third  class  of 
hearers  to  be  represented  as  going  further  than  the  second.  But  it 
seems  more  natural  to  make  the  two  co-ordinate  as  different  divisions 


MARK  4,  19.  20.  97 

of  the  same  class,  i.  e.  of  temporary  converts  or  believers,  the  differ- 
ence between  them  being  not  that  one  continues  longer  than  the  other, 
but  that  one  is  scandalized  by  violence,  the  other  by  allurement  or 
seduction.  AVhile  the  former  yield  to  distress  and  persecution,  these 
are  rendered  fruitless  by  the  cares  and  pleasures  of  the  world.  Cares, 
undue  solicitudes,  anxieties,  and  fears,  as  to  the  interests  of  this  life. 
The  corresponding  verb  (translated  in  our  Bible  by  the  old  English 
phrase  to  take  thouglit,  i.  e,  to  be  over  anxious)  is  applied  by  our 
Lord  elsewhere  in  the  same  way  (^latt.  G,  25-34.  Luke  10,  41.)  Of 
tliis  world  (or,  according  to  the  critics,  the  icorld),  the  same  Greek 
word  that  was  explained  above  (on  3,  29),  as  meaning  properly  dura- 
tion or  continued  existence,  either  definite  or  indefinite,  finite  or  infi- 
nite, according  to  the  context.  Some  suppose  it  here  to  mean  the  old 
economy  or  dispensation,  to  which  secular  anxieties  were  more  appro- 
priate, and  even  necessarily  incident,  than  to  the  new.  But  it  is  more 
natural  to  understand  it  of  the  present  life,  with  its  temporary  inter- 
ests and  pleasures,  as  opposed  to  the  future  and  eternal  state.  Besides 
the  cares  or  anxious  fears  belonging  to  this  mixed  and  in  a  certain 
sense  probationary  state,  and  relating  chiefly  to  the  means  of  subsist- 
ence, our  Lord  specifies  another  danger,  the  deceit  of  wealthy  including 
both  delusive  hope  and  fanciful  enjoyment,  and  applying  therefore  both 
to  those  who  make  haste  to  be  rich, as  being  the  true  source  of  happi- 
ness, and  those  who  reckon  themselves  actually  happy  because  rich 
alread}^  To  these  specifications  Mark  adds  a  comprehensive  clause 
including  all  other  worldly  distractions,  the  desires  about  (relating  to) 
the  other  (or  remaining  things),  i.  e.  whatever  else,  belonging  only  to  the 
present  life,  can  be  an  object  of  such  overweening  covetous  desire  as  to 
interfere  with  the  legitimate  effect  of  the  instruction  which  has  been 
received  in  reference  to  higher  and  more  enduring  interests.  The 
comprehensive  or  residuary  character  of  this  clause  is  adverse  to  the 
distinction  which  might  otherwise  be  recognized  between  the  cai'es  (or 
anxious  fears)  and  the  desires  (or  carnal  hopes)  of  this  life,  as  the  rest 
(or  other  things)  implies  diversity  of  objects  rather  than  of  feelings 
towards  them.  Entering  in,  i.  e.  after  the  reception  of  the  truth,  or 
as  intrusive  strangers  who  have  no  right  to  admission,  but  ought  to 
have  been  shut  out.  Choke  the  tcord,  as  in  the  parable  itself  (v.  7) 
the  thorns  choked  the  seed,  another  mixture  of  the  sign  and  the  thinsr 
signified,  but  still  less  confusing  than  in  vs.  14.  15.  17,  because  even 
in  the  parable  to  choke  is  a  strong  figure  as  applied  to  plant.s,  requiring 
little  modification  to  adapt  it  to  spiritual  subjects.  The  same  thing 
substantially  is  true  of  the  remaining  clause,  a?id  it  becomes  unfruitful, 
i.  e.  the  word  or  truth  considered  as  a  seed,  because  intended  to  produce 
beneficial  effects  upon  the  life  and  character  of  those  who  hear  it,  in 
default  of  which  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of  it  as  was  before  said 
of  the  seed  which  represents  it,  that  it  yielded  not  fruit  (see  above, 
on  7.) 

20.  And   these   are  they   which   are   sown    on   good 
ground ;  such  as  hear  the  word,  and  receive  (it),  and  bring 


98  MARK  4,  20.  21. 

forth  fruit,  some  tliirty  fold,  some   sixty,  and  some   an 

hundred. 

Having  thus  applied  the  three  ideal  cases  of  unfruitful  sowing  to 
three  well-kno^yn  forms  of  human  experience,  our  Lord  concludes  his 
exposition  of  the  parable,  by  doing  the  same  thing  with  respect  to 
the  one  favourable  case  which  it  presented,  but  which  really  includes 
a  vast  variety,  at  least  in  the  measure  or  degree  of  fruitful ness,  denoted 
by  the  ratio  or  proportion  of  the  fruit  or  ripe  grain  to  the  seed  or 
sown  grain.  These  are  those  sown,  &c.,  as  in  v.  18,  i.  e.  those  whose 
case  is  represented  by  the  sowing  upon  good  ground.  These,  like  all 
the  others,  hear  the  tcord,  receive  instruction  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
kingdom,  and  like  two  of  the  preceding  classes,  actively  accept  it,  with 
assent  and  approbation,  but  unlike  them  all,  escaping  or  resisting  the 
occasions  of  unfruitfulness  before  described,  retain  it  (Luke  8,  15)  and 
hear  fruit,  wot  merely  for  a  time,  but  in  continuance,  with  perseverance 
and  yet  with  great  diversity  of  actual  attainment,  corresponding  to 
the  different  proportions  which  the  crop  bears  to  the  literal  seed 
sown,  which  Luke  omits,  but  Mark  and  Matthew  here  repeat,  though 
not  in  the  same  order  (Matt.  13,  23,  a  hundred,  sixty,  thirty.)  Even 
the  most  unreflecting  reader  cannot  need  to  be  reminded  that  the 
numbers  thus  selected  are  intended  to  convey  the  general  idea  of  pro- 
portional diversity,  and  not  to  limit  that  diversity  to  three  specific 
rates.  Hence  our  Lord,  in  expounding  this  part  of  the  parable,  simply 
rei)eats  what  he  had  said  in  the  parable  itself,  without  attaching  a 
specific  import  to  the  several  amounts,  a  lesson  and  example  to  inferior 
expounders, not  only  here  but  in  all  analogous  cases.  The  same  thing 
may  be  said  in  substance  of  the  three  cases  of  unfruitfulness,  except 
that  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  not  given  merely  as 
selected  samples,  but  as  comprehensive  heads  to  which  all  particular 
occasions  of  unfruitfulness  in  spiritual  husbandry  may  be  reduced. 
(See  above,  on  v.  16.) 

21.  And  he  said  nnto  them,  Is  a  candle  brought  to  be 
put  under  a  bushel,  or  under  a  bed  ?  and  not  to  be  set  on 
a  candlestick  ? 

To  the  exposition  of  the  parable  INIark  adds  a  most  important  and 
significant  appendix,  perhaps  uttered  on  the  same  occasion,  although 
JMatthew  gives  it  elsewhere,  as  a  portion  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
(Matt.  5, 15.  7,  2.)  But  this  is  easily  explained  upon  the  obvious  and 
probable  assumption,  that  these  sentences  belonged  to  those  aphoristic 
formulas  wdiich  Christ  appears  to  have  thrown  out  on  various  occasions, 
and  with  some  diversity  of  application,  by  neglecting  which  interpret- 
ers have  sometimes  thrown  the  history  into  confusion.  If,  as  is  cer- 
tainly conceivable,  these  words  were  uttered  more  than  once,  Matthew 
having  given  them  in  one  place,  would  be  likely  to  omit  them  in  the 
other,  while  Mark,  Avho  does  not  give  the  Sermon  on  the  ]\Iount  at  all, 
would  be  just  as  likely  to  insert  them  here.    The  charge  of  incoherence 


MARK  4,  21.  22.  99 

and  irrelevance  in  this  connection  rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that 
these  brief  proverbial  maxims,  forming  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
features  of  our  Saviour's  (5i6Vi;^r;)  method  of  instruction,  could  be 
uttered  only  once  or  in  a  single  application ;  whereas  their  very  use 
and  purpose  was  to  be  repeatedly  thrown  out  in  various  connections. 
Those  before  us,  therefore,  are  to  be  explained,  not  from  Matthew's 
context,  but  from  Mark's,  to  which  they  are  perfectly  appropriate, 
whether  actually  uttered  at  the  same  time  w^ith  the  parable  or  not. 
Me  said  to  tliem^  might  mean  upon  a  different  occasion,  but  according 
to  Mark's  usage  (see  above,  on  vs.  9, 11, 13),  rather  on  the  same.  One 
design  is  to  preclude  the  notion  of  an  esoteric  doctrine,  like  that  of  the 
heathen  mysteries  and  priesthoods,  to  be  shared  only  by  a  chosen  few. 
This  heathenish  idea  might  have  seemed  to  be  countenanced  by  the 
distinction  which  he  made  between  the  multitude  and  his  disciples,  and 
the  additional  instruction  given  to  the  latter  as  a  sort  of  favoured  class. 
In  opposition  to  this  natural  but  dangerous  mistake,  he  tells  them  here 
that  the  ultimate  design  of  all  his  teachings  was  the  general  diffusion 
of  religious  knowledge ;  that  whatever  exceptions  or  reserves  there 
might  be,  they  were  only  temporary  interruptions  of  his  customary 
course,  and  would  eventually  answer  the  same  purpose.  This  impor- 
tant caution  is  conveyed  by  the  familiar  figure  of  a  domestic  light,  i.  e. 
a  candle,  lamp,  or  lantern,  which  may  be  momentarily  concealed,  or 
its  light  shaded,  but  cannot  without  folly  and  absurdity  be  perma- 
nentl}^  put  beneath  a  vessel  or  a  couch.  The  proper  place  for  such  a 
light  is  the  candlestick,  or  lamp-stand,  and  it  cannot  be  rationally 
put  in  any  other,  except  for  some  transient  accidental  reason.  The 
form  of  the  question  is  the  same  as  in  3,  19,  presupposing  a  negative 
answer  (it  is  not  so,  ....  is  it  ?)  A  light  does  not  come  ....  does 
it?  Is  orougltt,  literally  co?nes,  a  personification  perfectly  familiar  in 
the  dialect  of  common  life,  and  in  reference  to  the  very  same  subject. 
The  size  or  capacity  of  the  Roman  modius  (about  one  peck  of  our  meas- 
ure) is  of  no  more  importance  to  the  meaning  of  the  passage  tlian  the 
dimensions  of  the  couch  or  bed.  It  is  mentioned  not  as  a  specific 
measure,  but  as  a  utensil  with  which  they  were  familiar  in  their  liouses. 
The  same  idea  might  be  now  conveyed  by  speaking  of  a  box  or  basket. 
The  verb  is  to  be  tacitly  repeated  in  the  last  clause.  Does  it  not  come 
(is  it  not  brought,  for  the  very  purpose)  tJiat  it  may  he  imt  upon  the 
candlesticlc  or  lamp-stand  ?  a  derivative  form  of  the  word  meaning 
light,  and  to  be  rendered  in  accordance  with  it.  The  nexus  between 
this  verse  and  the  one  before  it  is  obscured  by  the  omission  of  the 
intervening  thought,  that  a  domestic  light  may  now  and  then  be  thus 
concealed,  but  only  for  a  moment  and  for  some  necessary  purpose.  So, 
too,  the  hght  of  his  instructions,  though  occasionally  veiled  in  parable 
or  otherwise  obstructed,  was  intended  to  diffuse  itself,  and  even  when 
confined  for  the  present  to  a  few,  was  so  confined  in  order  to  be  more 
effectually  shed  abroad. 

22.  For  there  is  nothino^  liid,  which  shall  not  be  mani- 


100  MARK  4,  22.  23. 

fested  ;   neitlier  was  any  tiling  kept  secret,  but  that  it 
should  come  abroad. 

What  he  had  just  expressed  by  Uvely  figures  he  now  says  in  literal 
or  plain  terms,  the  connection  being  indicated  by  ihefo7\  As  if  he 
had  said,  these  figures  drawn  from  3^our  domestic  habits,  are  appro- 
priate to  your  spiritual  duties  and  advantage,  because,  &c.  There  is 
not  any  thing  Md  wMch  may  not  he  revealed^  the  construction  in  Greek 
being  highly  idiomatic,  so  that  a  literal  version  (ichatsoever  may  he  not 
revealed)  would  be  unmeaning  or  conve}^  a  wrong  idea.  The  last  clause 
is  not  a  mere  reiteration  of  the  same  thought  in  other  words,  but  adds 
a  strong  expression  of  design  or  purpose.  Not  only  shall  what  is  now 
concealed  be  made  known,  but  it  is  now  concealed  in  order  to  be  made 
known.  The  common  word  for  hidden,  secret,  is  exchanged  for  a  cog- 
nate but  more  emphatic  compound,  which  is  itself  the  source  of  our 
word  apocrypha^  as  primarily  meaning  something  hid  away  or  brought 
out  from  concealment.  Nor  7ias  any  thing  hecome  (or  been  made) 
secret,  hut  tliat  it  might  come  into  open  (view),  or  be  made  public. 
The  very  form  of  this  clause  shows  that  neither  it  nor  that  before  it 
can  be  here  (whatever  it  may  mean  in  Matthew)  understood  as  a 
threatening  of  detection  and  exposure  to  concealed  iniquity  ;  for  how 
can  this  be  said  to  have  become  (or  been  made  secret)  in  order  that  it 
might  be  brought  to  light,  unless  we  understand  the  first  words  as 
denoting  God's  permission  or  endurance  of  the  secrecy,  or  attenuate 
the  meaning  of  the  particle  {in  order  that),  both  which  are  gratuitous 
and  violent  constructions,  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity.  The 
obvious  reference  in  this  connection,  which  is  thereby  cleared  of  inco- 
herence and  abruptness,  is  to  the  partial  transient  obscuration  of  the 
light  of  Christ's  own  teachings,  by  the  use  of  parables  or  otherwise, 
not  as  preventive  but  eventually  promotive  of  its  full  diffusion. 

23.  If  any  man  have  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

If  these  words  had  been  given  only  here  by  Mark,  as  they  are  given 
earlier  by  ^latthew  (13.  9),  it  might  be  made  a  question  which  evange- 
list has  put  them  into  their  exact  place.  But  as  Mark  records  them 
twice,  and  the  woids  themselves  belong  to  that  class  of  our  Lord's  expres- 
sions which  were  most  apt  to  be  repeated  often  (see  above,  on  v.  9).  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  so  repeated  upon  this  occasion,  though 
the  fact  has  been  preserved  b}'  Mark  alone,  ^uch  repetition  is  the  less 
improbable  because  the  solemn  admonition  which  precedes  was  very 
liable  to  misconstruction,  as  appears  from  the  incongruous  sense  often 
put  upon  it  still,  and  then  made  a  pretext  for  accusing  the  historian  of 
incoherence.  To  put  the  disciples  on  their  guard  against  such  miscon- 
ception, was  a  purpose  which  might  well  excuse  a  still  more  irksome 
repetition  of  our  Lord's  proverbial  warning,  that  whoever  had  the  fac 
ult}'  of  hearing  ought  to  use  it  now  if  ever,  as  a  safeguard  against  error 
in  relation  to  a  most  important  privilege  and  duty. 


MARK  4,  24.  25.  101 

24.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Take  heed  whut  ye  liear. 
With  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you, 
and  unto  von  that  hear,  shall  more  be  o'lven. 

And  lie  said  to  tJiem,  perhaps  upon  a  different  occasion,  and  record- 
ed just  here  onlj'  to  complete  Mark's  statement  of  the  Saviour's  teach- 
ings upon  this  important  subject.  Here  again,  however,  as  in  v.  21,  it 
is  more  probable  that  it  was  uttered  at  the  same  time  with  the  language 
which  precedes  it  in  the  context.  Nevertheless,  let  it  be  observed 
that  this  assumption  is  by  no  means  requisite  to  vindicate  the  writer, 
who  makes  no  assertion  either  way,  and  whose  purpose  in  recording 
these  words  is  as  perfectly  accomplished  on  the  one  hypothesis  as  on 
the  other.  The  onl}'  difference  is  that  between  the  phrase,  '  he  then 
went  on  to  sa}^,'  and  the  phrase,  *  at  another  time  he  said,'  kc.  Tale 
heed,  literally,  see,  i.  e.  see  to  it,  look  out,  be  circumspect  or  cautious 
(see  above,  on  2,  44,  where  a  dilfercnt  but  synonymous  verb  is  used.) 
What  ye  hear,  i.  e.  from  me,  on  this  and  other  like  occasions,  which 
implies  or  neccssaril}'-  suggests  the  caution,  hoio  ye  hear  (Luke  8,  18), 
as  their  manner  of  receiving  his  instructions  must  depend  upon  their 
views  as  to  what  those  instructions  were.  Then  follows  another  of  the 
Saviour's  gnomes  or  maxims,  which,  though  always  meaning  the  same 
thing  essential)}',  were  adapted  and  intended  to  be  variously  applied. 
The  specific  application  here  must  be  determined,  not  by  the  connec- 
tion of  the  same  words  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  7,  2.  Luke 
6.  37),  where  they  have  reference  to  censorious  judgments,  but  by  their 
connection  here,  where  they  can  only 'be  referred  to  the  same  subject 
with  the  words  preceding,  i.  e.  Christ's  peculiar  method  of  instruction 
and  the  way  to  profit  by  it.  The  essential  meaning  of  the  maxim  in 
both  cases  is,  that  giving  and  receiving  are  reciprocal,  like  action  and 
reaction  as  a  law  of  physics.  The  specific  application  here  is,  that  he 
who  would  receive  instruction  must  give  something  in  return,  to  wit, 
intelligent  attention,  a  desire  to  be  instructed,  and  a  proper  use  of 
■what  he  knows  already.  In  this  sense,  as  in  many  others,  might  our 
Lord,  without  a  change  in  the  essential  meaning  of  his  language,  say  to 
them,«;j,  ichat  measure  ye  measure  shall  te  measured  to  you,  i.  e.  I  will 
treat  you  as  learners  just  as  you  treat  me  as  your  instructor,  this  spe- 
cific application  being  not  only  suggested  by  the  context,  but  distinctly 
intimated  in  the  next  clause,  unto  you  that  hear  shall  more  'be  given,  a 
correct  paraphrase,  but  not  a  literal  translation,  which  is,  there  shall 
Ije  added  (or  addition  shall  be  made)  to  you  hearing  (or  to  you  that 
hear.)  This  last  word  shows  that  the  law  of  reciprocity  is  here  ap- 
plied, not  to  the  act  of  judging,  but  to  that  of  hearing,  i.  e.  hearing 
Christ's  instructions. 

25.  For  he  that  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given ;  and  he 
that  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  even  that  which  he 
hath. 

The  idea  suggested  in  v.  24  is  here  expressed  in  still  another  form, 


102  M  ARK  4,  25.  2G.  27. 

which  Matthetv  mtroduces  earlier  in  this  discourse  (13,  12),  but  Luke 
(8,  18)  agrees  with  Mark  in  placing  at  the  close  of  this  important  ad- 
monition.    The  question  of  arrangement  is  of  less  importance,  as  our 
Lord  appears  to  have  pursued  the  subject  both  before  and  after  he  ex- 
plained the  parable  of  the  sow^er,  and  the  only  difference  is  in  this  rela- 
tive position  of  the  sentence.     AVe  may  either  suppose  therefore  (as  in 
V.  23)    that  he  uttered  the  words  tAvice,  or  regard  it  as  a  matter  of 
indifference  whether  they  preceded  or  followed  his  infallible  interpre- 
tation of  the  Sower.     Aj)plying  the  same  rule  of  exposition  as  before, 
to  wit,  that  the  specific  application  of  such  maxims  is  to  be  determined 
b}^  the  context  in  everv  given  case  of  their  occurrence,  we  shall  find 
that  the  one  here  uttered  has  respect  not  to  grace  or  spiritual  influence 
in  general,  but  to  illuminating  grace  or  spiritual  knowledge  in  particu- 
lar.    Our  Lord  exhorts  them  to  attend  to  what  he  says,  and  lays  it 
down  as  the  foundation  of  ulterior  attainments;  for  in  this  sense  too 
it  may  be  said,  Whocrcr  Iiat<,  to  him  shall  le  given,  i.  e.  whoever  takes, 
keeps,  and  uses,  what  I  tell  him  now.  shall  know  still  more  hereafter. 
And  the  converse  is  of  course  true,  he  who  has  not  (in  possession  and 
in  use  what  I  have  previously  taught  him),  even  ^chqt  he  has  (of  previ- 
ous knowledge  and  attainment,  or  even  of  this,  as  a  mere  speculative 
intellectual  possession)  shall  he   talcen  from  him.      This  involves  a 
threatening  of  divine  retribution,  but  is  strictly  and  directly  the  an- 
nouncement of  a  general  law,  both  intellectual  and  moral,  namely,  that 
the  only  choice  is  between  loss  and  gain,  advancement  and  recession ; 
that  there  can  be  no  stagnation  or  repose ;  that  the  onl}'"  method  of  se- 
curing what  we  have  is  by  improving  it,  the  failure  to  do  which  is  tan- 
tamount to  losing  it  or  throwing  it  away.     It  is  only  another  aspect  of 
the  same  important  lesson,  no  doubt  uttered  by  our  Lord  in  some  dis- 
course upon  this  subject,  and  most  probably  in  that  before  us.  that  we 
find  in  Luke's  report  of  it  (8,  18),  namely,  that  the  value  of  previous 
attainments  in  religious  knowledge,  unless  thus  improved  and  advanced 
upon,  is  only  specious  and  apparent,  and  that  even  this,  in  case  of  fail- 
ure to  increase  and  groAv,  will  be  withdrawn,  or  seen  in  its  true  colours, 
for  lohoeiev  has  not  (in  possession  and  in  use  what  I  have  taught  him, 
but  imagines  that  he  can  retain  it  as  it  is  without  its  growing  either 
more  or  less),  even  what  he  (thus)  seems  to  have   (or  thinks  he  has,  of 
spiritual  knowledge)  shall  Jje  talicn  fi'om  him,  not  as  an  arbitrarj'  pun- 
ishment inflicted  by  authority,  but  as  the  necessary  intellectual  and 
moral  product  of  his  own  neglect. 

26.  And  lie  said,  So  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a 
man  should  cast  seed  into  the  ground  ; 

27.  And  should  sleej:),  and  rise  niglit  and  day,  and  the 
seed  slioidd  spring  and  grow  np,  he  knoweth  not  how. 

Passing  over  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  which  INIatthew  here  gives 
(13,  24-30)  with  our  Lord's  interpretation  of  it  (3G-50),  an  omission 
not  easily  explained  on  the  hypothesis  of  mere  compilation  or  abridg- 


MARK  4,  27.  28.^  103 


mcnt,  JMark  records  a  parable  not  given  by  the  others,  although  ut- 
tered at  the  same  time  with  the  Sower,  or  at  least  intended  to  illus- 
trate the  same  subject,  b}'-  analogies  derived  from  the  same  source,  to 
wit,  the  processes  of  husbandry.  Having  shown  the  different  reception 
of  the  word  by  different  classes,  exploded  the  idea  of  all  mystery  or 
esoteric  doctrine,  and  exhorted  them  to  caution  as  to  what  and  how 
they  heard,  he  now  proceeds  to  teach  them  in  the  same  way,  that  the 
ultimate  effect  is  wholly  independent  of  man's  industry  and  care,  how- 
ever necessary  these  may  be.  The  idea  is  essentially  the  same  with 
that  expressed  by  Paul  in  1  Cor.  3,  6.  7.  Here  as  there,  too,  the  ex- 
ternal form  is  that  of  a  parable,  not  a  narrative  indeed  (see  above,  on 
V.  2),  but  still  an  illustration  drawn  from  the  analogy  of  human  expe- 
rience and  the  usages  of  common  life.  The  main  fact  thus  alleged  is 
that  although  man  must  sow  and  reap,  all  that  lies  between  these  two 
extremes  is  not  only  independent  of  his  power  but  beyond  his  observa- 
tion. And  he  said,  in  pursuance  of  the  saitie  design,  and  probabl}^,  but 
not  necessarily,  upon  the  same  occasion  (see  above,  on  vs.  9.  13.  21.  24.) 
So  is  the  Icingdom  of  God.  i.  e.  such  is  its  growth  and  progress  in  the 
world  and  in  the  hearts  of  men.  As  if  a  man  (not  the  specific  term 
opposed  to  iDoman,  but  the  generic  term,  equivalent  to  human  being, 
person,  and  here  meaning  a7iy  one)  east  seed  (hypothetically  stated  al- 
though one  of  the  most  common  facts  of  every -day  experience)  iqjon  the 
earth  (as  if  to  indicate  a  careless  superficial  sowing  as  the  whole  that 
man  can  do  until  the  harvest)  and  (then)  sleej)  and  icaltc  (as  usual) 
night  and  day  (according  to  his  ordinary  habit)  without  using  any 
other  means  to  make  it  germinate,  or  even  thinking  of  it.  till  the  time  of 
it:^  maturity  approaches.  But  notwithstanding  his  neglect  or  ina^ 
bility  to  aid  its  germination,  it  does  germinate  and  groio  (literally 
lengthen  or  prolong  itself)  hoio,  knows  not  ^6,  the  pronoun  being  placed 
empliatically  at  the  end,  as  much  as  to  say,  whoever  else  may  know  it, 
it  is  all  unknown  to  him.  by  whom,  and  for  whose  benefit,  the  seed 
was  sown.  The  form  of  the  verbs  sprout  and.  grow  is  still  subjunctive 
or  expressive  of  contingency,  because  although  such  cases  are  of  every- 
day occurrence,  the  particular  one  mentioned  is  ideal  or  imaginary  (see 
above,  on  v.  3.) 

28.  For  the  earth  bringetli  forth  fruit  of  lierself ;  first 

the  blade,  then  the  ear,  after  that  the  full  corn  in  tJie  ear. 

Of  herself  in  Greek  an  adjective  which  means  spontaneous  or  self- 
moving,  and  the  neuter  form  of  which  (^automaton)  is  used  in  English 
to  denote  a  self-moving  machine,  particularly  one  wdiich  imitates  the 
actions  of  the  human  body.  It  is  here  to  be  relatively  understood  with 
reference  to  man  and  his  exertions.  So  far  as  these  are  concerned,  the 
earth  is  independent  and  self-acting,  in  the  growth  of  plants,  but  not  as 
respects  God,  whose  agency,  so  far  from  being  here  excluded,  is  im- 
pliedly opposed  to  that  of  man.  What  is  here  affirmed  is  true  not  only 
of  the  first  germination,  but  of  all  the  later  stages  and  developments. 
First  the  Hade,  literally,  grass,  or  that  period  of  growth  in  which 


104  MARK  4,  28.  29.  30.  31.  32. 

grains  and  grasses  are  alike.  Then  tlie  enr^  the  same  word  that  occurs 
above  in  v.  23.  Then  the  full  (or  full-p:ro^yn,  ripe,  mature)  corn  (i.  e. 
grain,  as  in  the  passage  first  referred  to.) 

29.  But  when  the  fruit  is  brought  forth,  immediately 

he  putteth  in  the  sickle,  because  the  harvest  is  come. 

Is  hrovght  forth^  literally,  gives  iip^  yields  (i.  e.  itself)  to  him  who 
sowed  it  and  is  to  enjoy  it.  Immediately^  as  soon  as  it  is  ready  for  his 
use.  he  putteth  in  (literally,  sendeth  out)  the  siclde^  i.e.  reaps  or  causes 
to  be  reaped  by  others,  because  the  harvest  stands  near  (is  at  hand), 
and  it  is  therefore  time  again  for  man  to  work.  The  main  point  here 
is  not  the  act  of  reaping  but  the  agent,  or  the  fact  that  now  man's 
agency  begins  again,  after  having  been  suspended  since  the  sowing.  In 
other  words,  man  sows  and  reaps,  but  cannot  make  the  seed  grow  or 
the  harvest  ripen.  So  the  Avord  or  truth  of  God  must  be  diffused  by 
human  agency,  and  acts  on  human  interests  for  good  or  evil ;  but  its 
whole  efficiency  is  in  itself,  i.  e.  in  God  who  gave  it  and  who  renders  it 
effectual  to  men's  salvation. 

30.  And  he  said,  Whereunto  shall  we  liken  the  king- 
dom of  God  'i  or  with  what  comj^arison  shall  we  com- 
pare it  ? 

31.  (It  is)  like  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  which,  wdien 
it  is  sown  in  the  earth,  is  less  than  all  the  seeds  that  be  in 
the  earth. 

32.  But  when  it  is  sown,  it  groweth  up,  and  becometh 

greater  tlian  all  hei'bs,  and  shooteth  out  great  branches; 

so  that  the  fowls  of  the  air  mav  lodo;e  nnder  the  shadow 

of  it. 

And  he  said,  as  in  v.  26,  in  pursuance  of  the  same  subject,  and 
most  probably  in  direct  continuation  of  the  same  discourse.  This  for- 
mula here  introduces  a  third  parable  or  illustration,  drawn  from  the 
analogies  of  husbandry,  and  recorded  also  by  Matthew  (13.  31.  32)  im- 
mediately after  that  of  the  Sosver.  The  truth  taught  is  the  expansive 
and  diffusive  nature  of  the  true  religion  and  the  necessar}-  growth  of 
the  Messiah's  kingdom,  both  in  society  at  large  and  in  the  hearts  of 
individuals,  from  the  most  infinitesimal  beginnings  to  the  most  im- 
mense results.  This  idea  is  expressed,  in  a  parabolic  or  proverbial 
manner,  hy  the  growth  of  the  sijiapi  or  oriental  mustard,  from  a  seed 
unusually  small,  not  merely  to  a  bush  or  shrub,  but  to  a  tree  with 
spreading  boughs,  aff(jrding  shade  and  shelter  to  the  birds  of  heaven 
(or  the  air.  sec  above,  on  v.  4.)  Less,  or  lesser,  an  English  form  which, 
although  different  in  origin,  may  serve  to  represent  the  double  com- 
parative in  Greek.  Ir.^s  than  all  seeds,  in  proportion  to  the  size  which 
it  attains  at  its  maturity.  Ilerhs,  i.  e.  garden  plants  or  vegetables. 
May,  or  more   exactly,  ca??,  are  able.     Zo^/^i",  literally,  camp  or  i^itch 


MARK  4,  32.  33.  34.  35.  105 


tent,  tabernacle;  then  more  general!}';, find  shelter,  and  still  more  so, 
du'cU  or  sojourn.  This  last  clause  is  added  to  show  that  the  boughs 
or  branches  previously  mentioned  are  not  merely  apparent  but  sub- 
stantial and  like  those  of  trees,  sufficient  to  sustain  the  weight  of  birds 
alighting  and  remaining  on  them. 

33.  And  with  many  sucli  parables  spake  lie  the  word 
unto  them,  as  they  were  able  to  hear  (it.) 

These  are  mere  samples  of  the  parables  by  which  our  Lord  eluci- 
dated or  disguised  the  doctrine  of  his  kingdom  to  the  different  classes 
of  his  hearers  in  proportion  to  their  previous  knowledge  and  their 
present  receptivity  of  such  instruction  (see  above,  on  vs.  24.  25.)  As 
they  tcere  aide  to  hear^  i.  e.  as  some  understand  it,  to  hear  intelligently 
or  with  patience.  It  may  however  have  the  stricter  and  more  simple 
sense,  as  they  had  opportunity  and  leisure  to  attend  on  his  instruc- 
tions. 

34.  But  without  a  parable  spake  he  not  unto   them  ; 

and  when  they  were  alone,  he  expounded  all  things  to  his 

disciples. 

This  cannot  mean  that  he  never  taught  them  in  any  other  form, 
which  would  be  contradicted  by  the  whole  course  of  the  history,  but 
only  that  whatever  he  did  teach  in  parables  he  did  not  also  teach  in 
other  forms,  but,  as  the  last  clause  more  explicitly  asserts,  reserved 
the  explanation  for  a  private  interview  with  his  disciples.  This  closes 
Mark's  account  of  our  Lord's  parables,  including,  as  we  have  now  seen, 
a  full  report  of  one  with  its  author's  own  interpi-etation  (vs.  1-20),  an 
explanation  of  his  purpose  in  emplo3'ing  this  mode  of  instruction  and 
direction  to  his  followers  how  to  profit  by  it  (21-25) ;  two  additional 
parables,  without  a  formal  explanation  (20-32)  ;  and  a  general  state- 
ment of  his  practice  in  relation  to  this  matter  C33-34.) 

35.  And  tlie  same  day,  when  the  even  was  come,  he 
saith  unto  them,  Let  us  pass  over  unto  the  other  side. 

Having  finished  his  account  of  our  Lord's  parables,  j\Iark  now  re- 
sumes that  of  his  miracles,  selecting  one  wholly  different  from  any  pre- 
viously recorded,  and  evincing  the  same  power  over  the  elements  which 
he  had  already  proved  himself  to  possess  over  evil  spirits  and  diseases. 
The  same  day^  literally,  that  day.  which  might  possibly  refer  to  some 
day  previously  spoken  of  but  not  in  the  immediate  context.  But  the 
only  natural  construction  is  the  strict  one,  which  makes  that  day  mean 
the  day  on  which  the  previous  discourse  was  uttered.  The  supposed 
inconsistency  with  Matthew  (13,  18)  who  connects  this  incident  with 
the  healing  of  Peter's  wife's  mother  at  Capernaum,  proceeds  upon  the 
false  assumption  that  the  connection  in  both  gospels  is  a  strictly  chro- 
nological one.  But  Matthew's  text  gives  no  such  intimation,  and  his 
5- 


lOG  MARK  4,  35.  36.  37.  38. 

Nvords  may  just  as  well  mean,  seeing  (on  another  occasion)  many  crowds 
about  him.  !Maik  alone  specifies  the  time,  nor  is  tiiere  any  ground  for 
questioning  the  truth  of  this  specification.  He  says  to  them,  his  per- 
sonal adherents  and  attendants,  let  us  go  through  (across  the  lake)  to 
the  other  side,  or  to  the  (part)  beyond,  the  last  Greek  word  being  that 
from  which  the  province  east  of  Jordan  took  its  Greek  name  of  Perea 
(see  above,  on  3,  6.)  Not  only  the  day  but  the  exact  time  of  day  is 
given,  when  the  even  was  come,  literally,  evening  coming  (or  being  come.) 

36.  And  when  they  had  sent  away  the  multitude,  they 
took  him  ev^en  as  he  was  in  the  ship.  And  there  were 
also  with  him  other  little  ships. 

And  they  (the  disciples)  having  sent  away,  dismissed,  let  go,  the 
crowd,  take  him  (to  themselves),  as  he  was  (already  in  the  boat,  or  in 
the  boat  as  he  was),  i.  e.  without  allowing  time  for  preparation,  an  ex- 
pression indicating  prompt  obedience.  Mark  alone  records  the  circum- 
stance that  other  boats  were  with  them,  i.  e.  when  they  started. 

37.  And  there  arose  a  great  storm  of  wind,  and  tlie 
waves  beat  into  the  ship,  so  tliat  it  was  now  full. 

Arose,  literally,  is,  begins  to  be,  or  happens.  Beat,  literally,  threw 
(i.  e.  itself)  upon,  assailed,  or  made  an  attack.  Into  denotes  something 
more,  namely,  actual  entrance  or  invasion,  the  effect  of  which  is  then 
described  in  the  remaining  words.  Xoic  full,  literall}'",  already  filled, 
and  covered  with  the  waves  (Matt.  8,  24),  and  therefore  in  great  danger 
(Luke  8, 23.) 

38.  And  he  was  in  the  hinder  part  of  the  ship,  asleep 
on  a  pillow :  and  they  awake  him,  and  say  unto  him, 
Master,  carest  thou  not  that  we  perish  ? 

AV'hiie  his  followers  were  otherwise  and  elsewhere  busied,  he  him- 
self was  at  the  stern,  or  back  part  of  the  vessel,  (lying)  on,  or  (leaning) 
against  the  cushion,  such  as  vere  probably  provided  in  such  vessels  for 
the  use  of  passengers.  Sleejnng,  not  merely  in  appearance  but  reality. 
His  human  nature  was  refreshed  by  sleep  like  that  of  other  men,  while 
his  divinity  (as  Calvin  sa3s)  was  watching.  Airale  him  is  in  Greek  a 
stronger  term,  being  an  emphatic  compound,  meaning  to  arouse  or  rouse 
up.  Master,  in  its  old  sense  of  teacher  (jtnagister),  corresponding  to  dis- 
ciple, and  in  the  parallel  accounts  to  Lord  (Matt.  8,  25)  and  overseer  or 
prefect  (Luke  8.  24.)  This  appeal  to  him  as  a  religious  teacher  gives 
peculiar  force  to  the  ensuing  miracle  as  a  convincing  attestation  of  his 
doctrine  and  divine  legation.  Carest  thou  not  is  in  Greek  an  impersonal 
construction,  is  it  not  a  care  to  thee,  is  it  a  matter  which  concerns  thee 
not?  That  tee  i^crish,  not  in  general,  at  some  time,  but  are  perishing, 
at  this  time,  even  while  we  speak.     This  word  is  common  to  all  three 


MARK  4,  38.  30.  40.  41.  107 

accounts,  while  those  accompanjnng  it  vary,  but  without  effect  on  the 
essential  meaning.  The  question  implies  not  onl}'  fear  but  indignation 
or  complaint  that  he  should  sleep  while  they  were  going  to  destruction. 

39.  And  lie  arose,  and  rebuked  tlie  wind,  and  said 
unto  the  sea,  Peace,  be  stilL  And  the  wind  ceased,  and 
there  was  a  great  calm. 

And  heing  roused  (or  thoroughly  awakened),  the  passive  participle 
of  the  verb  in  the  preceding  verse.  Eebul'ed.  in  words,  as  if  it  were  a 
rational  agent,  which  some  consider  as  implying  that  the  storm  was 
raised  by  Satan  or  his  demons,  who  were  then  the  real  objects  of  the  fol- 
lowing reproof  and  order.  This  may  seem  to  be  countenanced,  and  was 
perhaps  suggested,  hy  the  sameness  of  this  order  and  the  one  addressed 
to  the  demoniac  in  1,  25.  Peace  is  in  Greek  an  active  verb,  he  silent^ 
hold  thy  peace,  be  still,  which  last  phrase  is  emplojxd  in  our  version 
to  translate  the  stronger  word  that  follows,  though  it  is  another  pas- 
sive form  of  the  verb  used  in  1,  25,  and  meaning  strictly,  he  muzzled. 
The  peculiar  force  of  the  perfect  imperative  passive,  as  if  commanding 
what  was  past  already,  cannot  be  perfectly  expressed  in  English. 
Ceased,  another  most  expressive  word  in  Greek,  denoting  weariness  or 
rest  from  labour.  There  icas.  began  to  be,  became,  or  came  to  pass,  a 
great  calm,,  i.  e.  perfect  stillness  of  the  sea  so  lately  agitated  by  the 
wind. 

40.  And  he  said  unto  them.  Why  are  ye  so  fearful  ? 
how  is  it  that  ye  have  no  faith  ? 

So  fearful  may  either  mean  afraid  in  so  unreasonable  a  degree,  or 
with  a  kind  of  fear  so  inconsistent  with  your  faith  in  me  ?  In  either 
case  the  question  implies  censure  and  disapprobation,  not  because  there 
was  no  danger,  or  because  they  had  no  right  to  be  alarmed,  but  be- 
cause their  danger  although  real,  and  alarm  though  natural  and  not 
irrational,  ought  to  have  been  neutralized  and  nullified  by  his  presence 
and  by  unshaken  confidence  in  his  ability  and  willingness  to  save  them. 
This  trust  they  may  have  been  prevented  from  reposing  in  him  by  the 
fact  that  he  was  then  asleep  ;  but  this  could  only  prove  the  weakness 
of  their  faith  in  limiting  his  power  to  a  wakeful  state.  By  being  thus 
fearful,  i.  e.  afraid  that  they  would  sink  before  they  could  arouse  him. 
they  provoked  and  justified  the  searching  question,  ?wic  have  ye  not 
faith  ?  i.  e.  such  faith  as  ye  ought  to  have,  and  such  as  would  have 
saved  you  from  this  unbelieving  teri-or.  How  is  it  that  ye  have  no 
faith  is  too  strong,  and  implies  that  they  were  absolutely  unbelievers. 

41.  And  they  feared  exceedingly,  and  said  one  to  an- 
other. What  manner  of  man  is  this,  that  even  the  wind 
and  the  sea  obey  him  ? 

They  feared  a  great  fear,  a  familiar  Hebrew  idiom,  also  known  in 


108  MARK  4,  41. 

other  languages,  ana  nere  gratuitously  weakened  by  translating  it 
exceedingly.  Another  needless  yariation  from  the  form  of  the  origi- 
nal is  what  manner  of  man  instead  of  iclio  then  (or  therefore),  a  logi- 
cal formula,  introducing  a  conclusion  or  deduction  from  the  facts 
already  stated.  Some  understand  this  as  the  language  of  the  crew 
or  boatmen,  and  not  of  the  disciples,  who  could  scarcely  have  in- 
quired, after  all  that  they  had  witnessed,  who  or  what  he  was.  But 
although  such  an  expression  on  the  part  of  others  seems  to  be  pre- 
"'  served  by  Matthew  (8.  27),  the  words  in  Mark  are  naturally  those 
of  the  disciples,  and  can  easily  be  exjDlained,  not  as  expressing  any 
ignorance  or  doubt  as  to  the  person  of  their  master,  but  unfeigned 
astonishment  at  this  new  proof  of  his  control,  not  only  over  demons 
and  diseases,  but  also  over  winds  and  waves,  which  they  had  seen, 
like  human  slaves,  obey  him  at  a  word.  Thus  understood,  the  last  of 
this  verse  suggests  the  reason  of  Mark's  adding  this  particular  mirac- 
ulous performance,  namely,  that  he  might  complete  his  series  of  exam- 
ples, not  promiscuously  taken  but  selected  out  of  many,  for  the  purpose 
of  presenting  in  a  new  light  Christ's  dominion  over  every  form  of 
evilj  as  well  natural  as  moral. 


»♦> 


CHAPTER  Y. 


Continuing  the  narrative  of  the  Saviour's  miracles,  resumed  near  the 
close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  Mark  records  three  more,  not  promis- 
cuously taken  from  the  mass  or  accidentally  remembered,  but  deliber- 
ately chosen,  as  intrinsically  wonderful,  and  also  on  account  of  their 
dissimilarity  to  one  another  and  to  any  that  had  gone  before  :  thus 
showing  a  definite  intention  in  the  writer  to  illustrate  his  great  subject, 
the  proi)hctic  ministry  of  Christ,  not  by  an  indiscriminate  array  of 
facts,  however  striking  in  themselves,  but  by  distinct  examples  of  the 
various  powers  which  he  claimed  and  exercised.  The  first  of  the 
miracles  here  given  belongs  to  tiie  class  of  demoniacal  possessions,  but 
presents  a  case  not  only  of  peculiar  aggravation  but  of  great  impor- 
tance in  its  bearing  on  the  evidence  of  Christ's  Messiahship  (1-21.) 
The  other  two  are  complicated  together,  not  through  any  fault  of  the 
historians,  but  from  their  fidelity  in  reproducing  what  occurred  pre- 
cisely as  it  did  occur,  one  miracle  having  been  performed  while  Christ 
was  on  his  way  to  work  another.  The  former  was  the  healing  of  the 
woman  with  the  issue  of  blood,  affording  a  clear  proof  of  Christ's  om- 
niscience and  compassion,  and  a  striking  illustration  of  the  various 
modes  in  which  his  cures  were  wrought.  For  while  in  this  case  the 
disease  was  checked  by  contact  with  his  garment,  in  the  one  that 
follows,  he  had  gone  to  a  considerable  distance  for  the  purpose,  and 
performed  the  miracle  with  more  than  usual  formality.     This  was  a 


MARK   5,  1.  2.  109 

miracle  of  resuscitation,  the  first  of  that  class  upon  record,  and  there- 
fore carrying  vastly  further  than  before  the  demonstration  of  our 
Lord's  divine  legation  and  extraordinary  powers  (21-43.)  The  obvious 
indications  of  selection  and  design  in  these  three  narratives  not  only 
binds  them  to  each  other  in  one  context,  but  confirms  our  previous 
conclusions  with  respect  to  the  unity  and  plan  of  the  whole  history. 

1.  And  tliev  came  over  unto  the  otlier  side  of  tlie  sea, 

into  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes. 

The  next  miracle,  recorded  by  the  three  evangelists,  and  represented 
by  them  all  as  immediately  subsequent  to  the  stilling  of  the  storm 
upon  the  sea  of  Galilee,  is  the  dispossession  of  a  multitude  of  demons 
and  their  entrance  into  lower  animals,  with  Christ's  permission  or  at 
his  command.  The  scene  of  this  transaction  was  on  the  east  side  of 
the  lake,  called  by  iMark  and  Luke  (8,  20)  the  land  or  district  of  the 
Gadarenes^  so  named  from  Gadara^  a  strong  and  wealthy  city  of 
Perea,  not  named  in  Scripture  but  described  by  Josephus  as  a  Greek 
town,  i.  e.  probably  inhabited  by  Gentiles.  It  was  attached  to  Herod's 
jurisdiction  by  Augustus,  but  annexed  to  Syria  both  before  and  after- 
wards. The  highest  modern  geographical  authorities  identify  it  with 
extensive  ruins  at  a  place  called  Umkeis,  on  a  mountainous  range  east 
of  Jordan,  near  the  southern  end  of  the  lake  and  overlooking  it.  The 
district  appears  to  have  had  other  names,  derived  from  towns  or  tribes, 
one  of  which  has  been  preserved  by  Matthew  (8,  28).  though  the 
reading  there  is  doubtful.  There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  essential  fact 
that  what  is  here  recorded  took  place  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  and 
opposite  to  Galilee  (Luke  8,  26.)  Beyond  this  the  details  of  the  to- 
pography are  unimportant. 

2.  And  when  he  was  come  out  of  the  ship,  immedi- 
ately there  met  him  out  of  the  tombs  a  man  with  an 
unclean  spirit, 

To  Mm  coming  out,  i.  e.  as  he  landed  (Luke  8,  27),  not  merely  after 
he  had  done  so,  which,  would  admit  of  an  indefinite  interval,  whereas 
the  landing  and  the  meeting  were  simultaneous  or  immediately  succes- 
sive. Met  him,  or  came  to  meet  him,  possibly  with  some  unfriendly 
purpose.  Out  of  the  tomis,  a  Greek  word  originally  meaning  memo- 
rials, then  monuments,  then  tombs  or  sepulchres.  As  these  were  usually 
in  the  shape  of  houses,  or  of  chaml)ers  hewn  in  the  rock  (see  below, 
on  15,  46),  they  would  easily  afford  a  haunt  and  refuge  in  such  cases 
as  the  one  here  mentioned.  A  man,  originally  from  the  city  (Luke  8, 
27),  probably  of  Gadara,  but  now  driven  from  his  home  by  an  aggra- 
vated demoniacal  possession.  There  were  really  two  men  who  now 
appeared  in  this  condition  (Matt.  8.  28)  ;  but  Mark  mentions  only  one, 
perhaps  the  more  alarming  and  distressing  case,  as  sufiicient  for  his 
purpose  (compare  Luke  8,  27.)  In  an  inidean  sjjirit,  not  merely  in 
company,  but  in  intimate  and  mysterious  union,  with  a  demon  (see 


no  MARK  5,  2 


o 
o. 


al)Ove,  on  1,  23.  32.  3,  22.)  Thus  far  the  case  resembled  multitudes 
of  others  which  our  Lord  had  i)reviously  dealt  with,  excepting  in  the 
circumstance  sufrgested  by  the  words,  out  of  the  tombs,  and  more  dis- 
tinctly stated  in  the  next  verse. 

3.  AVho  had  (bis)  dwelling  among  the  tombs  ;  and  no 

man  could  bind  him,  no,  not  with  chains  : 

Here  we  begin  to  see  a  fearful  singularity  in  this  case,  as  compared 
with  all  the  other  demoniacal  possessions  previously  mentioned,  and 
accounting  in  some  measure  for  its  being  singled  out  and  separately 
stated.  Hitherto  such  cases  have  been  spoken  of  as  aggravated  forms 
of  disease,  preternaturallj'-  caused  but  under  the  control  and  cure  of 
others.  (See  above,  on  1,  23.  32.  34,  and  compare  Matt.  12,  22.)  Here, 
on  the  contrary,  the  sufferer  is  a  voluntary'-  outcast  from  society,  who 
had  the  residence  (or  dwelling^  in  (not  merely  among)  the  tombs,  a 
kindred  and  synonymous  expression  with  the  one  employed  in  v.  2. 
Could  bind,  literally,  could  not  bind,  a  double  negative  in  Greek  en- 
forcing the  negation.  (See  above,  on  2,  44.)  With  bonds,  whether 
chains  or  cords,  the  original  expression,  according  to  its  usual  deriva- 
tion, only  signifying  strength  and  close  confinement.  It  appears  to  be 
implied  that  such  coercion  was  the  ordinary  practice,  which  indeed  had 
been  tried  in  this  case  at  an  earlier  stage,  as  stated  in  the  next  verse. 

4.  Because  that  he  had  been  often  bonnd  with  fetters 
•and  chains,  and  the  chains  had  been  plucked  asunder  by 
him,  and  the  fetters  broken  in  pieces  :  neither  could  any 
(man)  tame  him. 

It  was  not  a  mere  conjecture  or  gratuitous  assumption,  that  the 
usual  coercive  measures  were  impossible  in  this  case,  but  a  matter  ot 
experience.  It  was  so  regarded /<>;'  (or  on  account  of)  his  having  been 
often  bound  loith  fetters,  a  word  derived  from  feet  both  in  Greek  and 
English,  and  denoting  any  thing  by  which  the  feet  are  fastened,  whether 
chain  or  cord.  It  is  implied  in  this  account  and  expressed  in  Luke's 
(8,  27),  that  the  case  was  one  of  ancient  standing,  and  had  been  grow- 
ing worse,  as  the  confinement  which  had  once  been  practised  was  no 
longer  possible  ;  unless  we  understand  the  negative  expression  in  v.  3 
to  mean  that  he  could  not  be  confined  for  any  length  of  time,  but 
always  sooner  or  later  broke  his  bonds.  Plucl'ed  asunder,  torn  apart, 
or  pulled  in  different  directions,  with  the  preternatural  strength  some- 
times caused  by  ordinarj'  madness,  but  in  this  case  obviously  owing  to 
the  presence  of  the  demon,  who  was  suffered  to  influence  both  mind 
and  body  but  with  absolute  dominion  over  neither.  (See  above,  on  I, 
23-32).  The  other  passive  verb  here  used  is  properly  the  opposite  or 
converse  of  the  first,  meaning  rubbed  together,  i.  e.  with  great  violence 
and  thereby  crushed  or  broken.  This  does  not  necessarily  imply  a 
diflerence  in  the  structure  or  material  of  the  chains  and  fetters,  both 
verbs  by  a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  not  unknown  in  other  languages, 


MARK  5,  4.  5.  6.  Ill 

referring-  to  both  nouns,  as  if  it  had  been  said  that  the  chains  and  fetters 
were  either  torn  apart  or  crushed  together  by  the  frantic  violence  and 
strength  of  the  demoniac.  It  is  only  a  more  general  expression  of  the 
same  fact,  that  no  one  (inan  is  supplied  by  the  translators,  see  above, 
on  2,  21,)  could  tame  Mm.  Could  is  neither  an  auxiliary  nor  the  verb 
used  in  the  last  clause  of  v.  3,  but  another  still  more  clearl}^  significant 
of  strength  or  power  ;  no  one  icas  strong  (enough)  to  tame  Mm.  This 
last  verb  properl}^  denotes  the  subjugation  of  the  lower  animals  by 
man,  but  is  also  applied  to  moral  influence  on  human  subjects.  (For 
examples  of  both  senses,  compare  James  3,  7.  8.)  It  may  here  express 
a  complex  notion,  comprehending  moral  suasion  and  phj'sical  coercion  ; 
but  the  latter  having  been  already  mentioned,  the  former  is  probably 
the  main  idea.  As  no  one  could  confine  his  limbs,  so  no  one  could  sub- 
due his  will ;  it  was  equally  impossible  to  bind  and  tame  him. 

5.  And  always,  niglit  and  day,  he  was  in  the  moun- 
tains, and  in  the  tombs,  crying,  and  cutting  himself  with 
stones. 

Having  stated  negatively  his  indomitable  fierceness,  Mark  completes 
the  melancholy  picture  by  describing  positively  how  he  spent  his  time. 
Alicays^  literall}^  through  all  (time),  i.  e.  continually,  which  is  thus 
expressed  in  more  specific  terms.  NigM  and  day,  suggesting  the  idea 
of  insomnia,  or  sleeplessness,  one  of  the  most  distressing  incidents  and 
symptoms  of  insanity  in  some  of  its  familiar  forms,  but  in  this  case  no 
doubt  aggravated  by  the-  ceaseless  stimulation  of  the  evil  spirits.  In 
the  hills  (or  mountains),  agrees  well  w^ith  the  localities  of  this  transac- 
tion, as  the  district  south-east  of  the  lake  is  hilly,  and  the  ancient 
Gadara  appears  to  have  been  situated  near  the  summit  of  the  range  of 
highlands  upon  that  side  of  the  Jordan.  Crying,  either  with  pain  or 
from  unnatural  excitement,  an  effect  w^hich  seems  to  have  been  common 
in  the  case  of  demoniacal  possessions  (see  above,  on  1,  2G.  3,  11,  and 
below,  on  v.  7.)  Cutting  is  in  Greek  an  intensive  compound  corres- 
ponding to  cut  down,  cut  iqy-,  in  English,  and  denoting  here  not  mere 
occasional  incisions  but  a  general  laceration  of  the  body  in  the  wretched 
sufferer's  frantic  war  upon  himself,  or  with  the  demon  who  possessed 
him.  With  stones,  the  sharp  flints  scattered  on  the  surface  of  desert 
tracts  in  Palestine,  and  several  times  mentioned  elsewhere.  (See  Matt. 
3,  9.  4,  3.)  To  this  fearful  picture  nothing  can  be  added  but  the  cir- 
cumstances mentioned  in  the  parallel  accounts,  that  he  would  wear  no 
clotl^^s  (Luke,  8,  27).  and  that  he  (with  his  companion)  was  the  terror 
of  tl?c  country,  so  that  no  one  dared  to  pass  that  way  (Matt.  8,  28.) 

6.  But  when  he  saw  Jesus  afar  off,  he  ran  and  w^or- 
shipped  him. 

Thus  far  the  evangelist  has  been  describing  the  habitual  condition 
of  this  terrible  demoniac  ;  now  he  describes  his  conduct  upon  this 
occasion.     Seeing  Jesus  from  ajar  he  rari,  the  local  adverb  qualifying 


112  MARK  5,  6.  7. 

either  verb  or  both,  and  not  the  first  exclusively,  as  in  the  version. 
This  act  of  running  from  a  distance  may  have  looked  to  the  spectators 
like  a  violent  attack,  and  may  at  first  have  been  so  intended,  which 
would  make  the  change  more  striking  when,  instead  of  Hying  at  the 
stranger,  as  he  had  been  wont  to  do  as  long  as  any  came  that  way,  he 
suddenly  fell  down  to  him  (Luke  8,  28),  i.  e.  before  him,  and  icor- 
shippedj  i.  e.  did  him  reverence  or  homage,  in  the  customary  oriental 
method  by  prostration,  or  by  kissing  his  feet,  or  the  ground  beneath 
them,  or  his  own  hand,  the  primary  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb  being 
that  of  kissing,  or  in  the  compound  form  here  used,  lissing  (the  hand) 
to  (or  at)  one,  in  the  way  of  reverential  salutation.  The  English  verb 
(tv  worshi]^)  also  has  a  wider  meaning  in  the  older  writers  than  the 
one  to  which  it  is  confined  by  later  usage,  that  of  adoring,  reverencing 
as  a  divine  being.  It  is  not  impossible,  however,  that  this  stronger  sense 
is  here  intended,  since  the  demons  recognized  our  Lord,  not  merely  as 
the  Son  of  man^  or  the  JMessiah  (see  above,  on  2,  10),  but  as  the  Son 
of  God.     (See  below,  upon  the  next  verse.) 

7.  And  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  and  said,  "What  have 

I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  (thou)  Son  of  the  Most  High 

God  ?  I  adjure  thee  by  God,  that  thou  torment  me  not. 

The  description  of  his  acts  is  followed  by  a  record  of  his  words. 
And  crying  with  a  great  'Doice,  seems  to  mean  not  merely  that  he  spoke 
loud,  or  even  that  his  voice  was  prematurely  strong,  but  also  that 
before  he  uttered  the  words  here  recorded,  he  gave  vent  to  one  of  those 
unearthly  shrieks,  which  have  been  already  mentioned  (on  v.  5),  as 
symptomatic  of  possession,  a  distinction  rendered  still  more  clear  in 
Luke  (8,  28),  by  the  arrangement  of  the  sentence.  The  words  them- 
selves seem  to  have  been  a  sort  of  formula  adopted  by  the  demons  or 
demoniacs,  when  brought  into  contact  with  the  great  exorcist.  This  is 
at  least  the  case  with  the  preliminary  question,  which  is  identical  with 
that  recorded  in  1,  24,  and  there  explained,  except  that  the  contempt- 
uous name  (^Nazarene)  is  here  exchanged  for  the  divine  one  (^Son  of 
God.)  It  is  true  that  even  then  the  evil  spirits  formally  OAvned  him  as 
the  Holy  One  of  God  ;  but  this,  as  there  explained  (on  1,  24).  relates 
not  so  much  to  his  essential  nature  as  to  his  mediatorial  woric  and 
office  ;  whereas  Son  of  God  denotes  community  of  nature  or  identity 
of  essence  with  the  Father,  from  whom  he  derives  the  title.  (See 
above,  on  1,  1.  3,  11.)  But  although  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  title 
in  its  highest  application,  it  admits  of  others  (as  in  Matt.  5,  9-45),  and 
perhaps  in  Mark  15,  39.  Luke  3,  38),  and  therefore  cannot  of  itself 
prove  that  the  demons  knew  our  Lord  to  be  a  divine  person,  although 
this  is  certainly  the  obvious  and  natural  presumption  from  the  usage 
of  the  words,  conhrmed  by  the  additional  einthet  Most  High  (or  Iligliest)^ 
which  distinguishes  the  true  God  from  all  false  gods,  and  would  seem 
to  be  employed  here  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  nature  of  the 
Son  by  indicating  that  of  the  Father.  The  recognition  and  expostula- 
tion are  succeeded  by  an  earnest  and  iuiportunate  petition.     /  adjure 


MARK  5,  7.  8.  113 

thee  hy  God^  a  much  stronger  expression  than  those  used  by  Luke  (8, 
28)  and  Matthew  (8,  29.)  To  adjure  is  properly  to  malx  siDear  or 
administer  an  oath.  i.  e.  to  exhort  one  in  the  name  of  God  to  tell  the 
truth,  in  which  sense  a  compounded  form  of  the  same  Greek  verb  is 
employed  in  Matt.  2G,  G3  ;  and  by  a  wider  application  the  uncom- 
pounded  verb  itself  denotes  any  solemn  charge  or  exhortation  in  tlie 
name  of  God  (as  in  1  Thess.  5,  27),  particularly  such  a  call  addressed 
to  evil  spirits,  and  requirmg  them  to  leave  their  victim  (as  in  Acts  19, 
13),  whence  the  verb  e-Torc/se  and  its  cognate  terms  (^exorcism  and  exor- 
cist)^ found  their  way  through  the  later  ecclesiastical  Greek  and  Latin 
into  our  own  and  other  modern  languages.  The  simple  verb,  as  here 
used,  denotes  urgent  entreat}^  in  the  name  of  God,  or  with  express 
appeal  to  his  authority  as  sanctioning  the  prayer.  It  is  equivalent  to 
saying,  'I  implore  thee  to  do  that  which  God  himself  approves  or 
Avould  approve  in  this  case.'  This  appeal  to  God  was  not  a  mere  auda- 
cious blasphemy,  but  a  plausible  deduction  from  his  having  really 
deferred  the  full  iniliction  of  their  sentence,  so  that  Christ's  interfer- 
ence with  them  might  be  speciously  described  as  an  anticipation  of  their 
final  doom,  or  tormenting  them  before  the  time.  (Matt.  8,  29.)  From 
the  Greek  word  (l3a(ravos)  for  a  touchstone  (called  in  Latin  la2)is 
Jh/dius)  upon  which  the  ancients  rubbed  the  precious  metals  as  a  test 
of  purity  and  genuinene&s.  comes  a  verb  {'(iaaavi^o))  expressive  of  that 
operation  ;  then  of  any  proof  or  trial ;  then  of  torture  as  a  test  of  truth 
and  falsehood,  or  a  means  of  discovering  the  former ;  then  of  torture 
or  torment,  as  the  severest  form  of  punishment,  in  -which  sense  it  is 
used  here.  'We  implore  thee  to  deal  with  us  as  God  himself  does, 
that  is,  not  to  precipitate  our  final  doom,  but  to  prolong  the  respite 
which  we  now  enjoy.'  This  petition,  and  the  reason  indirectly  used 
for  it,  corroborates  the  ])revious  jiresumption,  though  it  falls  short  of  a 
perfect  demonstration  that  the  demons  recognized  our  Lord  as  being, 
in  the  strict  and  highest  sense,  the  Son  of  God. 

8.  (For  he  said  unto  him.  Come  out  of  tlie  man,  (tlion) 
unclean  spirit.) 

As  this  adjuration,  or  importunate  petition,  might  have  seemed  to 
be  entirely  without  pretext  or  occasion,  and  therefore  historically 
doubtful  or  improbable,  Mark  here  goes  back  a  single  step  to  introduce 
a  circumstance  before  omitted,  and  supplying  the  required  link  of 
connection.  It  was  not  without  cause  that  he  thus  adjured  him, /or  he 
(Jesus)  said  to  him  (the  demon),  i.  e.  said  to  him  before  the  adjuration 
just  recorded,  which  is  equivalent  in  fact,  though  not  in  form,  to  the 
pluperfect  (Jie  had  said),  which  we  should  naturally  use  in  English. 
What  he  had  said  is  then  distinctly  stated.  The  leading  or  essential 
word  is,  Come  out !  The  remaining  words  are  a  description  of  the 
person  thus  addressed,  the  first  generically,  as  the  spirit,  i.  e.  the  one  in 
possession,  then  specificall}^,  as  the  unclean  (or  impure  one),  an  em- 
phatic collocation,  only  partially  imitated  in  the  English  version, 
unclean  spirit. 


114  MARK  5,  9. 

9.  And  lie  asked  liim,  What  (is)  thy  name  ?     And  he 
answered,  sa3'ing.  My  name  (is)  Legion  :  for  we  are  many. 

The  connection  here  is  a  little  doubtful,  though  the  sense  is  plain. 
These  words  may  either  be  included  in  the  supplementary  and  paren- 
thetical statement  of  what  Christ  had  said  before  the  adjuration  in  v. 
7  {for  he  said,  ....  and  (iftl-ed  him),  or  may  be  the  resumption  of  the 
main  narrative  thus  momentarilj'  interrupted  (for  before  the}'  thus 
adjured  him  he  had  said,  ....  and  after  they  adjured  him,  he  in- 
quired), which  last,  on  the  whole,  appears  to  be  the  natural  construc- 
tion. Asl'cd  is  not  the  simple  verb  so  rendered  in  4.  10,  but  a  com- 
pound form  corresponding  rather  to  our  questioned  or  examined^ 
perhaps  im])lying  a  judicial  rather  than  a  curious  or  indifferent  interro- 
gation. What  is  thy  name  ?  literally,  ichat  name  to  tliee  (belongs)  ?  So 
too  in  the  answer.  Legion  {is)  a  name  to  me.  i.  e.  My  name  is  Legion.  The 
meaning  of  this  answer  is  immediately  explained  hy  him  who  gave  it. 
(I  call  myself  so)  hccanse  numy  are  ice.  The  name  itself,  borrowed 
from  the  organization  of  the  Roman  army,  was  no  doubt  proverbial 
wherever  the  Roman  arms  prevailed.  The  precise  number  of  a  legion 
(varying  in  different  times  and  circumstances  from  three  to  above  six 
thousand)  is  of  no  more  importance  to  the  meaning  here  than  that  of^ 
the  modius  or  Roman  bushel  in  4.  21.  The  idea  meant  to  be  con- 
ve^'^ed  is  not  that  of  a  definite  number,  but  the  complex  one  of  multi- 
tude and  military  organization,  just  as  troop,  regiment,  and  host  are 
used  in  English,  even  when  there  is  no  reference  to  an  army  proper, 
but  to  something  more  organic,  although  not  necessarily  more  numer- 
ous, than  would  be  expressed  by  moh  and  raMde,  or  even  by  multitude 
and  crowd.  My  name  is  Legion  is  equivalent  to  saying,  in  more  modern 
phrase,  I  am  myself  (or  in  myself)  a  host,  not  however  as  a  metaphor  for 
strength,  but  as  denoting  literal  plurality  of  persons.  It  may  be  more 
fully  paraphrased  as  follows :  '  I  am  one,  yet  more  than  one,  nay 
many,  an  embattled  host,  a  legion,  swoi-n  to  the  same  cause  and  serv- 
ing under  one  commander.'  But  besides  this  explanation  of  the 
name,  afforded  l)y  contemporary  usage  and  association,  there  are  still 
two  questions  to  be  answeied  in  elucidation  of  the  verse  before  us. 
The  first  is,  to  whom  did  our  Lord  address  his  question,  and  by  whom 
was  it  responded  to  ?  This  point  is  of  less  real  than  apparent  moment, 
as  it  relates  to  something  quite  beyond  tlie  reach  of  human  scrutin}^, 
and  all  that  was  perceptible  would  be  the  same  on  any  supposition, 
i.  e.  whether  we  suppose  that  the  inquirj'-  was  propounded  to  the  man 
in  reference  to  his  real  name,  but  answered  madly  under  the  direction 
of  the  demons  as  relating  to  themselves  ;  or  whether  we  explain  it 
as  addressed  directly  to  the  latter,  and  intended  to  call  forth  the  an- 
swer which  was  actually  given.  The  only  remaining  supposition,  that 
our  Lord  desired  to  know  the  individual  or  personal  designation  of  the 
demon  as  such,  is  exceedingly  improbable,  parti}''  because  he  did  not 
need  the  information  for  himself,  and  it  could  not  be  of  any  use  to 
others  ;  partly  because  the  question  would  then  presuppose  a  single 
si)irit,  when  the  answer  and  the  subsequent  narrative  show  that  there 


MARK   5,  9.  10.  115 

were  many.  This  leads  to  the  other  doubtful  point,  to  wit,  in  what 
sense  the  possessors  of  this  man  are  represented  both  as  one  and 
many.  The  difficulty  is  not  in  relation  to  the  actions  of  the  man  pos- 
sessed, whose  mdividuality  was  not  destroyed  by  this  intrusive  occu- 
pation of  his  person,  but  to  the  express  distinction  made  between  him 
and  an  unclean  spirit  (v.  2),  the  unclean  spirit  (v.  8),  who  possessed 
him,  but  who  afterwards  describes  himself  as  being  many  (v.  9),  and  is 
always  mentioned  subsequently  in  the  plural  or  collective  form  (vs. 
10.  12.  13.  15.)  There  aie  three  ways  of  explaining  this  apparent 
inconsistency,  either  of  which  is  far  more  rational  and  easy  than  the 
h3'pothesis  of  real  contradiction,  which  could  hardly  have  escaped  the 
evangelists  themselves  and  their  original  or  ancient  readers,  some  of 
whom  were  on  the  watch  for  every  symptom  of  bad  faith  or  error. 
The  first  solution  is  by  taking  unclean  sjyirit  (vs.  1.  8)  as  a  collective 
signifying  personal  but  not  individual  agency,  it  being  the  established 
form  of  speech  to  call  the  unseen  power  by  which  the  demoniac  was 
possessed  an  evil  spirit,  whether  it  were  one  or  many.  This  is  not 
forbidden  by  the  general  laws  or  usages  of  language,  in  which  nothing 
is  more  common  than  the  use  of  such  collectives ;  but  it  is  without 
positive  example  or  analogy  in  the  New  Testament  itself.  A  second 
method  of  solution  is  to  understand  the  singular  term  (sjyirit)  of  the 
fiend  in  actual  possession,  but  the  plural  and  collective  of  his  comrades 
and  allies,  whom  he  summons,  as  it  were,  to  his  assistance,  and  who 
with  him  take  possession  of  the  swine.  But  this,  if  not  forbidden  ab- 
solutel}'-,  is  at  least  discountenanced  and  made  to  seem  less  natural,  by 
the  exi)ress  statement,  found  in  all  three  gospels,  that  the  unclean 
spiiits,  wliich  icent  into  the  swine,  icent  out  of  the  demoniac,  and  Luke 
says  expressly  (8,  30),  many  demons  had  gone  into  him.  Free  from 
all  these  objections,  and  positively  recommended  by  its  agreement  with 
the  military  figure  of  a  legion,  is  a  third  solution,  which  supposes  a 
plurahty  of  fiends  in  actual  possession,  but  with  one  superior  to  the 
rest,  as  the  commander  of  the  legion,  and  therefore  called,  b}''  way  of 
eminence,  the  unclean  spirit,  just  as  Satan  or  Beelzebub  is  elsewhere 
called  the  archon  of  th^  demons  (see  above,  on  3,  22.)  AVhether  Satan 
is  himself  the  evil  spirit  of  this  passage,  or  some  intermediate  "  spirit- 
ual wickedness"  (Eph.  6,  12)  belonging  to  the  hierarchy  of  hell,  is  a 
question  of  no  moment  to  the  exposition.  While  the  first  hypothesis 
is  simpler  and  requiies  least  to  be  assumed  without  express  authority, 
the  last  is  recommended  by  the  fact  that  Satan  is  not  named,  even  in 
answer  to  our  Lord's  direct  interrogation. 

.10.  And  lie  beson2:lit  liim  much  that  lie  would  not 
send  them  away  out  of  the  country. 

Finding  their  first  expostulation  against  any  interference  with  them 
fruitless  (see  above,  on  v.  7),  they  now  prefer  a  less  extravagant  peti- 
tion, that  if  driven  from  their  present  stronghold  in  the  bodies  of 
demoniacs,  they  might  at  least  continue  in  the  country  where  they 
had  been  long  perhaps  allowed  to  exercise  their  baleful  power.    He 


116  MARK  5,  10.  11. 

'besought  Mm  might  be  also  rendered  tTiey  tesotight  Imn,  as  the  Greek 
verb,  although  singular  in  form,  may  have  a  plural  subject  of  the 
neuter  s-ender.  But  as  this  construction  is  not  common  where  the 
neuters  denote  personal  agents,  the  common  version  is  approved  by 
the  highest  philological  autliorities.  Tlie  subject  may  be  either  the 
unclean  sjjii'it  of  vs.  2.  8,  or  the  demoniac  possessed  by  it  and  not  yet 
free  from  its  obtrusive  presence.  Much,  literall}'-  many  (things),  the 
version  many  (s2>irits),  or  many  (of  them),  being  forbidden  by  the 
usnge  just  explained.  Besought,  not  so  strong  a  word  as  that  in  v.  7, 
but  one  originally  meaning  to  call  to  (or  for)  one,  whether  in  the  sense 
of  invitation  (as  in  Acts  28,  20),  or  of  exhortation  (as  in  Acts  15,  32), 
or  of  invocation  and  entreaty  (as  in  1,  40  above,  and  in  v.  17  below.) 
The  additional  sense  of  consolation,  although  common  in  the  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament  (e.  g.  Matt.  2,  18.  5,  4),  is  altogether  secondar}^,  and 
would  here  be  wholly  inappropriate.  Aioay  out  is  a  correct  transla- 
tion of  the  double  preposition,  prefixed  both  to  the  verb  and  to  the 
noun.  The  verb  is  the  same  that  is  applied  above  (in  3,  14)  to  the 
sending  forth  of  the  apostles,  and  from  which  the  Avord  apostle  is  itself 
derived.  (For  other  applications  of  it,  literal  and  figurative,  see  above, 
on  1,2.  3,  31.  4,  29.)  The  country,  not  the  Holy  Land  or  Palestine, 
but  that  division  of  it  where  they  now  were,  and  to  which  the  Greek 
word  is  applied  above  in  v.  1,  as  it  is  in  1,  5  to  the  pi'ovince  of  Judea, 
but  never  to  the  whole  land  of  Israel  as  such,  not  even  in  Acts  8, 1. 
10, 39.  26,  20,  where  it  still  has  a  provincial  meaning.  The  district 
here  meant  is  no  doubt  that  of  the  Gadarenes,  where  these  events 
took  place  (see  above,  on  v.  1.)  The  request  itself  is  not  to  be  ex- 
plained by  any  Jewish  superstition  as  to  the  residence  of  fiends  in 
deserts,  supposed  by  some  to  be  referred  to  elsewhere  (Matt.  12,  43. 
Luke  11,  24),  but  either  as  a  simple  wish  to  continue  undisturbed  and 
where  they  were,  or  as  a  cunning  pretext  for  the  seizure  and  destruc- 
tion of  the  swine. 

11.  Kow  there  was  there  nigh  unto  the  mountains  a 
great  herd  of  swine  feeding. 

To  the  plural  {mountains)  the  critics  now  prefer  the  singular  form 
(mountain),  meaning  however  (as  in  3,  13).  not  a  detached  peak  or 
eminence,  but  the  whole  range  of  highlands  east  of  Jordan.  Nigh 
unto,  or  more  exactl}'-,  at,  next,  adjoining  (as  in  1,  33.  2,  2.  4,  11),  i.  e. 
feeding  on  the  slopes  or  at  the  foot  of  the  mountains.  But  even  if  the 
sense  of  nigh  (or  near)  be  preferred  there  is  no  contradiction  between 
this  account  and  Mattiiew's  (8,  30),  because  far  and  near  are  relative 
expressions,  and  the  same  distance  which  is  called /ar  in  a  room  would 
be  considered  nothing  in  a  landscape  or  a  journc3\  If  the  herd  was 
beyond  reach,  it  was  far  off ;  if  in  sight,  it  was  near  ;  and  both  ex- 
pressions might  be  naturally'  used  by  the  same  witness  in  succession, 
much  more  by  two  independent  witnesses.  Nor  would  such  a  varia^ 
tion,  when  susceptible  of  such  an  explanation,  be  considered  contradic- 
tory in  any  Anglo-Saxon  court  of  justicOj  although  so  esteemed  in 


MARK  5,  ]1.  12.  117 


many  a  Gorman  lecture-room  and  study.  According  to  our  rules  of 
evidence,  it  might  even  serve  to  strength'en  both  accounts  as  really 
though  not  ostensibly  harmonious.  Feeding,  or  l)cing  fed.  as  the  form 
may  be  either  middle  or  passive,  and  we  know  from  v.  14  that  there 
were  persons  tending  them.  As  swine's  flesh  was  forbidden  and  the 
swine  an  unclean  beast  according  to  the  law  of  Moses  (Lev.  11,7.  8. 
Deut.  14,  8)  ;  as  the  law  in  general,  and  especially  its  ceremonial  dis- 
tinctions, were  punctually  observed  at  this  time  ;  as  the  use  of  swine's 
flesh  is  eschewed  by  all  Jews  at  the  present  day,  and  there  is  no 
trace  of  any  other  practice  in  the  interval  :  it  is  highly  improbable 
that  these  swine  were  the  property  of  Jews,  unless  their  consciences 
allowed  them  to  provide  forbidden  food  for  Gentiles,  and  it  is  simpler 
to  assume  that  the  Gentiles  provided  it  for  themselves,  which  agrees 
well  with  the  statement  of  Josephus  that  Gadara,  the  chief  town  of 
this  district,  was  a  Greek  city  (see  above,  on  v.  1.)  The  question 
would  be  one  of  little  moment  if  it  had  not  been  connected  by  some 
writers  with  their  vindication  of  our  Saviour's  conduct  upon  this 
occasion  (see  below,  on  v.  20.) 

12.  And  all  tlie  devils  besotiglit  him,  saying,  Send  ns 
into  the  swine,  that  we  may  enter  into  them. 

It  is  remarkable  that  till  we  reach  the  tenth  verse,  the  demon,  or 
unclean  spirit,  is  not  onl}'  spoken  of,  but  speaks  as  a  single  individual 

{icliat  hare  I  to  doicitli  thee? I  adjure  thee thattlioic 

torment  me  not My  name  is  legion.)     In  the  tenth  verse  there 

is  a  transition  from  the  one  form  to  the  other,  both  of  which  occur 
there  (he  besought  him  not  to  send  them.)  After  the  tenth  verse,  the 
singular  is  wholly  superseded  b}^  the  plural,  and  the  remaining  words 
and  acts  are  all  ascribed  to  a  plurality  of  agents.  This  might  seem  to 
be  because  the  spirits,  being  now  expelled  from  the  demoniac,  no  longer 
derived  even  an  apparent  unity  from  their  alliance  with  his  personality, 
but  spoke  and  acted  for  themselves  ;  but  they  were  not  yet  driven  out, 
as  appears  from  v.  13  (compare  Matt.  8,  31.)  Some  of  the  critics  omit 
all  in  this  verse,  others  all  the  demons^  leaving  only  the  verb,  they  be- 
sought 7iim,  which  is  found  in  all  the  copies.  The  verb  is  the  same  with 
that  in  v.  10,  but  has  here  the  plural  form,  so  that  no  such  ambiguity 
exists  as  in  that  case.  Devils,  i.  e.  demons,  as  explained  above  (on  3, 
22.)  How  they  communicated  with  our  Lord  is  not  revealed,  but  can 
create  no  more  difficulty  than  the  similar  communication  between  him 
and  Satan  as  the  tempter  (see  above,  on  1,  13.)  As  they  were  not  yet 
driven  out  when  this  request  was  made,  they  may  still  have  made  use 
of  the  man's  vocal  organs,  though  they  spoke  no  longer  in  his  name  but 
in  their  own.  Mark  records  the  very  words,  and  not  the  substance 
only,  of  this  strange  request.  Matthew  also  makes  it  a  direct  address 
(8,  31),  while  Luke  gives  it  indirectly  (8,  32),  like  the  classical  histo- 
rians in  reporting  very  short  discourses.  Send  us  seems  a  peremptory 
demand,  but  involves  a  recognition  of  his  power  to  dispose  of  them, 
which  Matthew  and  Luke  express  by  using  the  verb  permit^  and  Mat- 


118  MARK  5,  12.  13. 

tliew  by  recording  the  conditional  expression,  if  tliou  cast  us  out.  Send 
us  into  them,  accordinrr  to  Greek  usaiie.  mioht  mean  nothina;  more  than 
send  us  in  among  them,  to  remove  which  ambiguity  the  words  are 
added,  tliat  ice  may  go  into  them,  and  take  possesion  of  their  bodies 
just  as  they  had  entered  into  the  demoniac  (Luke  8,  30.)  Those  who 
laugh  at  this  request  as  mere  absurdity,  and  therefore  never  uttered, 
only  show  their  mcapacity  to  estimate  tlie  craft  and  cunning  which  sug- 
gested it.  Having  begged  to  be  left  undisturbed  and  been  refused,  they 
now  apparently  relinquish  their  pretensions  to  the  human  victim,  and 
content  themselves  with  leave  to  take  possession  of  inferior  natures. 
But  this  mock  humihty  is  only  a  disguise  for  their  malignant  wish  to 
bring  reproach  and  danger  on  their  conqueror  and  judge.  If  it  be 
asked,  in  what  sense,  and  to  what  extent,  could  evil  spirits  take  posses- 
sion of  a  herd  of  swine,  the  answer  is,  precisely  so  and  so  far  as  the  na- 
ture of  the  swine  permitted.  As  that  nature  was  not  rational  or  moral, 
no  intellectual  or  spiritual  influence  could  be  exerted ;  but  the  body 
with  its  organs  and  sensations,  the  animal  soul  with  its  desires  and 
appetites,  could  just  as  easily  be  wrought  upon  by  demons  as  the  corre- 
sponding parts  of  the  human  •constitution.  The  difficulty  lies  in  ad- 
mitting demoniacal  influence  at  all,  and  not  in  extending  it  to  lower 
animals,  so  far  as  they  have  any  thing  in  common  with  the  higher. 


13.  And  fortliwitli  Jesus  gave  tliem  leave.  And  the 
nnclean  spirits  v/ent  out,  and  entered  into  the  swine :  and 
the  herd  ran  violently  down  a  steep  place  into  the  sea,  (they 
were  about  two  thousand)  and  were  choked  in  the  sea. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  they  expected  this  request,  like  the  first, 
to  be  refused,  as  they  could  scarcely  hope  to  conceal  from  Christ  the 
motive,  whether  mockery  or  malice,  which  had  prompted  it.  But  in 
the  exercise  of  that  divine  discretion  which  so  often  brought  good  out 
of  evil,  making  the  wrath  of  men  (and  devils)  to  praise  him,  and  re- 
straining the  remainder  which  would  not  have  that  effect  (Ps.  76,  10), 
he  immediately  2)ermitted  them^  and  no  doubt  actively  coerced  them  into 
doing  what  they  had  themselves  proposed.  And  going  out  (from  the 
demoniac,  or  hacing  gone  out),  the  unclean  S2)ii'its  (the  plural  form  of 
the  words  used  above  in  vs.  2.  8)  entered  into  the  swine,  the  very  phrase 
applied  by  Luke  (8,  30)  to  their  possession  of  the  human  subject.  The 
reality  of  this  transition  was  evinced  by  a  violent  and  sudden  move- 
ment of  the  swine  in  the  most  dangerous  direction,  from  which  instinct, 
uncontrolled,  would  have  preserved  them.  The  herd  rushed  down  the 
preciijice  (or  overhanging  bank,  as  the  Greek  word  means  according  to 
its  et3'mology)  into  the  sea  (or  lale),  between  which  and  the  hills  (or 
highlands)  they  were  feeding.  Of  all  ncological  absurdities  the  silliest 
is  the  notion  that  this  verse  is  a  poetical  description  of  a  madman  run- 
ning through  a  herd  of  swine  and  driving  them  into  the  water  !  To 
destroy  one  thus  would  have  been  hard  enough ;  but  the  evangelist  de- 
scribes a  simultaneous  movement  of  about  two  thousaml,  the  number 


MARK  5,  13.  14.  15.  119 

being  introduced  just  here  to  shut  out  all  perversion  or  unfounded  ex- 
planation of  the  fact  recorded.  The  approximative  formula  {ahout^  in 
Greek,  as  if)  does  not  imply  uncertainty,  much  less  entire  ignorance 
of  the  exact  number,  but  its  perfect  unimportance  except  as  the  sugges- 
tion of  too  great  a  number  to  be  thus  impelled  by  any  natural  or  ordi- 
nary cause.  It  is,  therefore,  no  less  foolish  than  irreverent  to  inquire 
how  Maik  (or  even  Peter)  ascertained  the  number  ;  as  if  an  experi- 
enced e3'e,  though  without  supernatural  assistance,  would  be  under  the 
necessity  of  counting  every  one  in  order  to  discover  that  there  were 
about  two  thoumnd.  xVnother  circumstance  of  some  importance  is  that 
they  all  without  exception  perished,  an  additional  proof  of  supernatural 
agency  in  their  destruction.  Gliolced  in  the  sea,  i.  e.  drowned,  the  verb 
denoting  any  kind  of  sti-angling  or  suifocation,  the  precise  mode  being 
suggested  by  the  added  words.  The  Greek  verb  is  the  primitive  or 
simple  form  of  the  compounded  one  metaphorically  used  in  4,  7.  19,  as 
another  compound  of  the  same  is  by  Matthew  (13,7)  in  a  different 
connection,  and  by  Luke  (8,  33)  in  this,  where  Matthew  less  specifi- 
cally says  (8,  32)  that  they  died  (or  perislied)  in  the  icaters. 

14.  And  the  J  that  feci  the  swine  fled,  and  told  (it)  in 
the  city,  and  in  the  country.  And  thej  went  out  to  see 
■what  it  was  that  was  done. 

And  those  feeding  them  fled,  astonished  and  alarmed  at  the  sudden 
loss  of  their  whole  charge,  and  reported,  carried  back  word  to  the  place 
from  which  they  came,  i.  e.  into  the  toion  (or  city),  where  the  owners 
of  the  swine  resided  (compare  Luke  15, 15),  and  into  the  fields  (or  coun- 
try) through  which  they  passed  on  their  way  thither ;  and  they  (the 
owners,  or  the  people  generall}^,  Matt.  8,  34,  both  in  town  and  country) 
came  out  (to  the  lake-shore,  where  these  strange  occurrences  had  taken 
place)  to  see  (for  themselves)  what  is  the  (thing)  done  (or  happened.) 

15.  And  they  come  to  Jesns,  and  see  him  that  was 
possessed  with  the  devil,  and  had  the  legion,  sitting,  and 
clothed,  and  in  his  right  mind  :   and  they  were  afraid. 

And  they  come  (at  once  and  no  doubt  in  a  crowd)  to  Jesus  (to 
whom  the  loss  had  been  ascribed  by  the  report),  but  here  their  wonder 
at  the  strange  death  of  the  swine  is  lost  for  the  moment  in  a  sight  still 
more  surprising.  And  they  see  (or  as  the  Greek  verb  more  emphati- 
cally signifies,  hehold,  survey,  contemplate  as  a  spectacle)  the  possessed 
(literally  denionized  one,  see  above,  on  1, 32.)  Sitting,  not  as  a 
matter  of  course  or  unimportant  circumstance,  but  sitting  still  like 
others,  instead  of  raving  and  roving  as  he  did  before  (v.  3)  ;  one  of  the 
strongest  proofs  that  could  be  given  of  his  restoration.  Clothed  (or 
dressed),  not  naked  or  in  rags  (Luke  8,27),  another  clear  proof  of  the 
same  great  change,  the  reality  of  which  is  then  asserted  in  a  single 
word,  equivalent  to  four  in  English.     Soher,  sane,  sound-minded,  as  op- 


120  MARK  5,  ]5.  IG.  17. 

posed  to  all  forms  of  insanity  (compare  Rom.  12,  3.  2  Cor.  5.  13.  Tit. 
2,  6.  1  Pet.  4,  7.)  The  verbal  form  of  the  original  in  all  these  jjlaces 
cannot  be  expressed  without  periphrasis  in  the  translation.  This  sight 
was  the  more  astonishing  because  they  recognized  at  once  in  this  calm, 
decentl}--  dressed,  well-behaved  man,  the  famous  maniac  who  had  so 
long  been  a  terror  to  the  country  (Matt.  8,  28),  the  (^one)  haxing  had 
(or  icho  had  had)  the  legion  (or  the  host  of  demons),  i.  e.  had  them  in 
him  and  united  with  him  while  they  had  him  in  possession  and  in 
bondage  (see  above,  on  3,  22.)  And  they  icere  frightened^  terrified, 
not  merely  filled  with  dread  of  further  loss,  or  of  bodily  damage  to 
themselves,  but  aioe-striick^  seized  with  that  religious  terror  which 
arises  even  in  the  irreligious,  upon  any  striking  indication  of  a  super- 
human power  or  the  presence  of  superior  beings. 

IG.  And  tliey  that  saw  (it)  told  them  how  it  befell  to 
him  that  was  possessed  with  the  devil,  and  (also)  concern- 
ing the  swine. 

In  addition  to  the  first  report  by  which  they  had  been  brought  to- 
gether, they  now  receive  upon  the  spot  a  more  detailed  account  from 
those  who  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  transaction.  This  is  more  natural, 
as  well  as  more  grammatical,  than  to  explain  the  aorists  as  pluperfects 
{(ind  they  had  told),  which  is  at  once  a  needless  repetition  and  a  vio- 
lent construction.  Those  seeing  (or  2cho  saw)  ma}'  be  either  the  swine- 
herds mentioned  in  v.  14,  who  must  then  be  supposed  to  have  returned 
with  their  emploj^ers  and  the  multitude ;  or  other  spectators  of  the 
miracle,  of  whom  there  is  no  mention  in  the  context,  unless  the  more 
detailed  account  here  mentioned  be  referred  to  the  disciples  or  the  boat- 
men (Matt.  8,  27),  by  whom  Jesus  was  accompanied  across  the  lake. 
Told,  an  entirely  different  verb  from  that  in  v.  14,  which  means  to 
report,  or  carr}^  back,  whereas  this  means  to  go  through  with,  to  re- 
count completel}'',  as  distinguished  from  the  hurried  and  confused  report 
which  would  be  given  by  the  swineherds  in  their  first  amazement  and 
alarm.  This  more  accurate  account  included  both  parts  of  the  strange 
transaction.  They  related  hoic  it  happened  (not  merely  what  had 
taken  place,  but  by  what  agency  it  was  effected)  to  the  demonized 
(ma7i),  the  possessed  (one),  the  demoniac.  They  also  related  all  ahout 
(or  concerning)  the  swine. 

17.  And  they  began  to  pray  him  to  depart  out  of  their 

coasts. 

The  effect  upon  the  multitude  of  what  they  saw  and  heard  is  now 
recorded.  TJiey  hegan  (i.  e.  at  once,  without  deliberation  or  delay)  to 
entreat  (exhort,  invite)  Am,  the  same  verb  that  is  employed  above,  in 
vs.  10. 12,  and  above  in  1.  40.  2'o  go  aicay  from  their  coasts/m  the  old 
English  sense  of  borders,  bounds,  or  confines,  often  put  for  all  that  is 
contained  within  them.  This  is  so  unlike  the  usual  effect  of  our  Lord's 
miracles  and  teachings,  that  it  seems  to  call  for  explanation,  which  may 


MARK  5,  17.  18.  19.  121 

be  derived  from  two  considerations.  The  first  is,  that  the  miracle,  al- 
though a  signal  miracle  of  mercy  to  the  demoniac  himself,  was  one  of 
injury  and  loss  to  the  owners  of  the  swine;  so  that  the  whole  mass  of 
the  population  (Luke  8,  37)  was  not  only  filled  with  awe,  but  appre- 
hensive of  some  more  extensive  damage.  The  other  is  that  Gadara  was 
a  Gentile  city  (see  above  on  v.  1),  and  the  great  mass  of  the  Gadarenes 
throughout  the  district  either  wholly  heathen  or  extensively  mixed 
with  them.  Now,  although  the  influence  exercised  by  Christ  was  not 
necessarily  confined  to  Jews,  yet  as  his  mission  was  to  them  (see  be- 
low, on  7,  24,  and  compare  Matt.  15,  24),  and  they  alone  could  fully 
understand  his  claims  as  the  Messiah,  it  is  not  surprising  that  a  Gentile 
population  should  have  been  less  favourably  impressed  by  this  one  mir- 
acle, the  benefits  of  which  extended  only  to  a  single  individual,  or  at 
most  to  the  circle  of  his  friends,  whereas  the  incidental  evils,  either  ac- 
tual or  apprehended,  were  more  general. 

18.  And  when  lie  was  come  into  the  ship,  he  that  had 

been  possessed  with  the  devil  jDrayed  him  tliat  lie  might 

be  with  him. 

And  lie  entering  (or  embarlcing^  i.  e,  as  he  did  so,  in  the  hoat 
(which  brought  him,  and  was  no  doubt  waiting  for  him),  thus  com- 
plying instantly  with  the  inhospitable  and  impolite  request  of  the  in- 
habitants, and  showing  how  far  he  was  from  wishing  to  obtrude  his  pres- 
ence or  his  ministry,  in  either  of  its  great  essential  functions,  upon  those 
who  were  unwilling  to  receive  them.  The  possessed  (or  demonized)  one^ 
i.  e.  he  who  had  been  so,  a  nice  distinction  clearly  indicated  by  the  form  of 
the  Greek  participle,  although  not  expressible  without  circumlocution 
in  a  modern  version.  Prayed  him,  the  same  verb  that  is  employed  in 
the  preceding  verse,  that  he  might  he  iciili  him^  a  fine  stroke  in  this 
most  interesting  picture,  and  susceptible  of  several  explanations,  not 
exclusive  of  each  other.  That  he  feared  a  relapse  or  repossession,  and 
depended  wholh^  on  his  great  deliverer  to  save  him  from  it,  is  a  most 
natural  and  probable  assumption  (compare  Matt.  12,  45.  Luke  11,  26.) 
But  if  this  were  all,  it  would  hardly  have  been  so  expressed  {that  he 
might  he  with  him.)  The  words  used  necessarily  suggest  a  higher  mo- 
tive, though  by  no  means  imconnected  with  the  one  first  mentioned.  This 
was  the  desire  to  be  with  Christ  from  personal  attachment,  springing 
out  of  gratitude  for  what  he  had  experienced,  and  that  saving  faith 
which  seems  to  have  so  commonly  accompanied  his  miracles  of  healing 
(see  above,  on  2,  5. 10.)  There  is  certainly  nothing  to  forbid,  and  much 
to  recommend  the  supposition  of  this  twofold  cure,  corporeal  and  spirit- 
ual, wherever  it  is  not  excluded  in  express  terms  or  by  necessary  im- 
plication. A  third  motive,  not  to  be  neglected,  is  the  seeming  wish  to 
disavow  the  act  of  his  compatriots,  by  requesting  that,  as  they  would 
not  receive  the  Lordj  the  Lord  would  receive  him,  and  separate  him 
from  them. 

19.  Howbeit  Jesus  suffered  him  not,  but  saith  unto 

6 


122  MARK  5,  19.  20. 

him,  Go  home  to  thy  friends,  and  tell  them  how  great 
things  the  Lord  hath  done  for  thee,  and  hath  had  compas- 
sion on  thee. 

And  (or  d2it)  he  did  not  permit  him,  give  him  leave,  or  let  him  go, 
the  same  use  of  the  Greek  verb  as  in  1,  34.  elsewhere  meaning  simply  to 
leave  (1, 18.  20.  31),  to  send  away  (4,  36),  or  in  a  figurative  sense  and 
moral  application,  to  remit  punishment  or  pardon  sin  (2,  5-10.  3,  28. 
4,  12.)  The  ground  of  this  refusal  is  implied  in  the  command  which 
follows.  But  (instead  of  allowing  him  to  do  so)  he  says  to  him,  Go 
(go  away,  depart,  as  in  1,  44.  2, 11)  into  thy  house  (so  long  forsaken 
by  himself  but  not  by  others,  for  he  adds)  to  thine,  thy  own,  those  be- 
longing to  thee.  This  might  be  understood  as  being  the  whole  circle 
of  his  friends  and  kindred,  if  the  preceding  phrase  be  rendered  go  home, 
as  the  English  version  gives  it  here,  though  not  in  2, 1.  3, 19,  where  it 
is  the  true  sense  of  the  indefinite  expression,  while  in  this  place  the 
specific  form  (the  house  of  the)  requires  a  corresponding  definiteness  of 
translation.  A7id  announce  according  to  the  common  text,  the  same 
verb  that  occurs  above  in  v.  14,  but  according  to  the  latest  critics,  a 
different  compound,  all  three  being  rendered  by  the  one  verb  tell.  How 
great  things,  perhaps  referring  both  to  bodily  and  spiritual  mercies. 
The  Lord,  an  ambiguous  expression,  really  describing  Christ  himself, 
but  which  the  hearers  may  have  understood  more  vaguely,  as  denoting 
God,  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  his  covenant  relations  with  his 
people,  as  expressed  by  the  Hebrew  name  Jehovah,  for  which  the  con- 
stant equivalent  or  rather  substitute  both  in  the  Septuagint  and  the 
New  Testament,  is  (6  Kvpios)  the  Lord.  And  had  mercy  on  thee,  a 
suggestion  of  his  own  unworthiness  and  the  frceness  of  the  favour  which 
he  had  experienced.  The  Greek  verb  is  different  from  that  in  1,  41, 
which  properly  denotes  the  feeling  of  pity  or  compassion. 

20.  And  he  departed,  and  began  to  pnblish  in  Decap- 
olis  how  great  things  Jesus  had  done  for  him.  And  all 
(men)  did  marvel. 

The  departure  in  this  case  from  our  Lord's  usual  practice  of  invit- 
ing or  permitting  men  to  follow  him,  not  only  as  apostles  (1,  17.  18.  20. 
2. 14),  but  also  as  disciples  (Matt.  8, 19. 22),  must  have  had  its  reasons, 
two  of  which  may  be  conjectured.  The  first  is,  that  the  nature  of  the 
case  required  it ;  the  demoniac  having  been  so  long  an  outcast  from  so- 
ciet}',  it  was  important  that  he  should  return  to  his  old  associations,  as 
a  proof  of  real  and  complete  recovery.  The  other  reason  is  suggested 
by  the  verse  before  us,  namely,  that  our  Lord  availed  himself  of  this 
man's  agency  to  spread  the  knowledge  of  his  miracles  throughout  that 
region,  the  inhabitants  of  which  refused  to  tolerate  his  presence.  How- 
ever this  may  be,  he  did  in  fact  go  away,  proclaiming  what  had  taken 
place  and  thereby  exciting  universal  wonder.  This  he  did,  not  only  in 
his  own  city  and  its  territory,  but  throughout  the  whole  adjacent  re- 
gion to  the  south-east  of  the  lake  and  east  of  Jordan,  here  called  Becap- 


MARK  5,  20.  21.  123 

olis  (or  Ten  Tow7is},  which  seems  to  be  rather  a  popular  than  a  polit- 
ical designation.  Hence  the  lists  of  these  ten  cities  given  by  Pliny, 
and  PtoTemy,  differ  as  to  two,  but  agree  in  eight,  Scj'thopolis  (accord- 
ing to  Josephus  the  largest),  Gadara  (see  above,  on  v.  1),  Gerasa  (sup- 
posed to  be  referred  to  in  Matthew  8,  28),  Pella  (to  which  the  Chris- 
tians fled  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem),  Hippos,  Dion,  Philadelphia, 
Canatha.  Of  these  Scy  thopolis  alone  was  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake 
and  river.  The  generic  title  may  have  had  its  origin  in  temporar}-  civil 
or  municipal  arrangements,  but  more  probably  arose  as  a  convenient 
designation  of  a  district  otherwise  without  a  common  name.  The 
question  is  of  no  exegetical  importance,  as  the  only  thing  essential  to 
the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  the  undisputed  fact,  that  this  new  proc- 
lamation of  the  gospel  took  place  in  a  certain  part  of  Palestine  where 
Christ  himself  had  not  proclaimed  it,  nay,  in  which  he  was  forbidden 
by  the  people  so  to  do.  Thus  the  miracle  in  question,  while  it  led  di- 
rectly to  his  exclusion  from  this  province,  incidentally  supplied  his 
place  by  a  zealous  and  devoted  substitute,  who  would  also  have  it  in 
his  power  to  counteract,  if  necessary,  any  false  impressions  with  re- 
spect to  the  destruction  of  the  swine.  Our  Sdviour's  agency  in  this  de- 
struction is  not  to  be  vindicated  on  the  ground  that  Jews  had  no  right 
to  keep  swine  and  were  therefore  justly  punished  by  the  loss  of  them. 
Even  admitting  that  these  men  were  Jews,  their  violation  of  the  law 
would  hardly  have  been  punished  so  circuitously  and  without  the 
slightest  intimation  of  their  crime.  The  act  was  one  of  sovereign  au- 
thority, attested  by  the  miracle  itself,  and  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  not 
disputed  even  by  the  persons  injured,  however  much  they  might  lament 
their  loss  and  wish  to  avoid  its  repetition.  There  is  no  more  need  of  any 
special  vindication  here  than  in  the  case  of  far  more  serious  inflictions 
of  the  same  kind  bj'-  disease  or  accident.  The  personal  presence  of  the 
Saviour  could  not  detract  from  his  divine  right  to  dispose  of  his  own 
creatures  for  his  own  ends,  even  if  these  ends  were  utterly  unknown  to 
us,  much  less  when  they  are  partially  perceptible.  For,  however  scio- 
lists and  sceptics  may  deride  this  occurrence  as  absurd  and  unworthy 
of  the  Saviour,  it  answered  an  important  purpose,  that  of  showing  his 
dominion  over  every  class  of  objects  (see  above,  on  v.  12),  and  of  prov- 
ing the  reality  of  personal  possessions,  by  exhibiting  a  case,  in  which 
the  demons,  abandoning  the  human  subject  whom  they  had  so  long 
tormented,  and  leaving  him  entirely  free  from  all  unnatural  excitement, 
instantaneously  betrayed  their  presence  and  their  power  in  a  multitude 
of  lower  animals,  impelling  them,  against  their  own  instinctive  disposi- 
tions, to  a  sudden  simultaneous  movement  ending  in  their  own  destruc- 
tion. Admitting  the  external  facts  to  be  as  Mark  describes  them,  the}'' 
are  wholly  unaccountable  except  upon  the  supposition  of  a  real  dispos- 
session such  as  he  affirms,  and  the  extraordinary  novelty  of  which, 
without  discrediting  his  narrative,  explains  his  having  given  a  conspic- 
uous place  in  it  to  this  signal  proof  of  superhuman  power.  ^^ 

21.  And  when  Jesus  was  passed  over  again  by  sliip 


124  MARK  5,  21.  22. 

unto  the  other  side,  much  people  gathered  unto  him  :  and 
he  was  nigh  unto  the  sea. 

From  this  brief  visit  to  the  Gadarenes,  intended  for  a  special  pur- 
pose just  explained,  our  Lord  returns  to  Galilee  and  to  his  own  city 
(Matt.  9,  1),  where  great  numbers  were  expecting  him  (Luke  8.  40.) 
Jesus  having  crossed  (or  passed  oxer)^  a  verb  derived  from  the  adverb 
{across,  leijond),  commonly  employed  to  designate  the  east  side  of  the 
lake  and  river  (as  in  3,  8.  4,  35.  5, 1),  but  here  the  western  side,  to 
which,  as  a  relative  expression,  it  is  equally  appropriate.  By  shi-p, 
literally,  i7i  the  boat,  i.  e.  the  one  in  which  he  had  departed,  and  on 
which  he  is  said  (in  v.  18)  to  have  embarked  on  his  return.  Again, 
in  reference  to  the  transit  mentioned  in  the  close  of  the  last  chapter 
and  the  opening  of  this  (4,  25.  5, 1.)  To  the  other  side,  or  to  the 
(jKirt)  beyond,  i.  e.  the  west  side  of  the  lake  from  which  he  had  set  out. 
There  was  gathered  a  great  crowd  to  him,  or  rather  upon  him,  implying 
not  mere  numbers  but  close  pressure  (see  above,  on  2,  2.  3,  9. 10.  4, 1.) 
And  he  teas  by  (or  along)  the  sea  (the  lake  of  Galilee),  on  which  Ca- 
pernaum was  situated  (see  above,  on  1,  21.) 

22.  And  behokl,  there  cometh  one  of  the  rulers  of  the 
synagogue,  Jairus  by  name ;  and  when  he  saw  him,  he 
fell  at  his  feet. 

And  behold  (or  lo),  an  interjection  used  to  introduce  something  new 
and  unexpected  (see  above,  on  1,  2.  3,  32.  4,  3),  which  is  here  the  nar- 
rative of  two  great  miracles,  woven  together  in  the  history  as  they  were 
in  fact,  the  one  having  been  performed  by  Christ  while  on  his  way  to 
work  the  other.  In  the  mean  time^  as  we  learn  from  Matthew  (9, 17) 
the  discourse  to  John's  disciples  about  fasting  took  place,  which  by 
Mark  is  given  earlier  (2,  18-22},  not  from  any  disagreement  as  to  dates, 
but  in  order  to  complete  his  account  of  Christ's  relation  to  the  various 
classes,  both  of  friends  and  foes,  with  Avhom  he  came  in  contact.  Com- 
pared with  this  design  the  mere  chronology  was  unimportant,  though 
preserved  by  ^iatthew  who  had  no  such  purpose.  There  comes,  in  the 
present  tense,  more  graphic  than  the  form  employed  by  Luke  (8,  41) 
and  Matthew  (9,  18.)  One  of  the  archi-synagogues  (or  rulers  of  the 
synagogue),  i.  e.  one  of  the  national  hereditary  elders  of  the  Jews, 
among  whose  functions  was  the  local  conduct  of  religious  discipline  and 
worship  (see  above,  on  1,  21.  39.  3,  1.)  The  idea  of  a  separate  organi- 
zation and  a  distinct  class  of  officers  appears  to  have  arisen  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  could  not  therefore  be  the  model  of  the 
Christian  Church  which  had  its  pattern  not  in  later  Jewish  institutions, 
but  in  the  permanent  essential  part  of  the  old  theocrac}^,  including  its 
primeval  patriarchal  eldership,  one  primarily  founded  upon  natural  rela- 
tions or  the  family  government  and  thence  transferred  not  only  to  th'^ 
Jewish  but  to  the  Christian  church-organization.  Of  such  rulers  there 
was  always  a  plurality  in  every  neighborhood,  but  not  a  bench  or 
council  of  elective  officers,  uniform  in  number,  as  in  the  later  syna- 


MARK  5,  22.  23.  125 

gogues,  when  the  dispersion  of  the  people  had  destroyed  the  ancient 
constitution  and  the  present  synagogue  arrangement  had  been  substi- 
tuted for  it.  But  as  this  arrangement  is  without  divine  authority, 
nothing  is  gained  but  something  lost  by  tracing  the  New  Testament 
church  polity  to  this  source,  instead  of  tracing  it  back  further  to  the 
presbyterial  forms  of  the  theocracy  itself.  The  elders,  who  were  ex 
officio  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  i.  e.  directors  of  its  discipline  and  wor- 
ship, had,  both  by  birth  and  oiBBcc,  the  highest  rank  and  social  posi- 
tion. This  application  for  assistance  therefore  came  from  the  most 
respectable  and  influential  quarter.  By  name  Jairus  (Jaeijvs),  the 
old  Hebrew  name  Jair  (Num.  32,  41.  Deut.  3, 14.  Judg.  10,  3.  1  Chr. 
2, 22.  20,  5.  Esth.  2,  5),  with  a  Greek  and  Latin  termination.  This 
particular  has  been  preserved  by  Mark  and  Luke  (8,41)  but  not  by 
Matthew  (9, 18),  showing  how  far  the  others  are  from  merely  abridg- 
ing or  transcribing  him.  And  seeing  hi7?i.  i.  e.  as  soon  as  he  came  in 
sight  of  Jesus,  or  as  soon  as  he  was  pointed  out  to  him,  which  would 
of  course  imply  that  he  had  never  before  seen  him,  not  a  probable 
assumption  in  the  case  of  a  religious  ruler  at  the  very  centre  of  our 
Saviour's  operations,  who  liad  many  opportunities  of  seeing  him  both 
in  the  synagogue  (1,21.39.  3,1)  and  elsewhere.  Intermediate  be- 
tween these  explanations  is  a  third  perhaps  more  natural  than  either, 
namely,  that  though  Jairus  knew  our  Lord  by  sight,  the  crowd  pre- 
vented him  for  some  time  from  distinguishing  his  person.  Falls  at  his 
feet,  still  in  the  present  tense,  as  though  the  scene  were  actuall}^  pass- 
ing. This  is  not  to  be  explained  as  an  act  of  adoration,  or  religious 
worship  properly  so  called,  but  as  a  natural  gesture  of  importunate  en- 
treat3\  See  above,  on  v.  G,  where  the  expression  is  still  stronger,  as 
it  is  here  in  Matthew  (9,  18.) 

23.  And   besought    him   greatly,    saying,    My   little 

daughter  lietli  at  the  point  of  death  :  (I  pray  tliee,)  come 

and  lay  tliy  hands  on  her,  that  she  may  be  healed ;  and 

she  shall  live. 

Aiid  besought  him  much,  literally  many  (things),  i.  e.  in  many 
words,  or  perhaps  with  many  arguments,  the  very  phrase  employed 
above  in  v.  10.  Saying  i(^a^,  a  peculiar  Greek  use  of  the  particle  in  di- 
rect quotations  altogether  foreign  from  our  idiom,  and  therefore  neces- 
sarily omitted  in  the  version  here,  and  in  1,  15.  37,  40.  2,  12.  3,  11. 
21.  22.  28,  in  all  which  cases  it  is  equivalent  to  then,  asfolloics,  or  the 
like,  in  English.  Little  daughter  is  in  Greek  one  word,  a  beautiful 
diminutive,  formed  on  a  regular  analogy,  but  only  found  in  Athenaeus, 
and  applied  here,  as  a  term  of  fond  affection,  to  an  only  daughter,  if 
not  to  an  onl}''  child  (Luke  8,  42.)  Lieih  at  the  jyoint  of  death,  a 
highly  idiomatic  English  paraphrase  of  two  Greek  words  which  if 
closely  rendered  (lastly  or  extremely  has)  would  be  unmeaning.  The 
adverb  is  equivalent  to  tlie  Latin  in  extremis,  and  the  English  in  ex- 
tremity, and  some  regard  the  whole  phrase  as  a  Latinism  (in  ex- 
tremis est) ;  but  half  of  it  (has  for  is)  is  purely  Greek,  and  all  of  it 


126  MARK  5,  23.  24.  25. 

is  found  in  Diodorus  Siculus,  and  with  another  verb  both  in  that  writer 
and  Pol3^bius.  The  sense  is  clearly  that  expressed  in  our  translation. 
Between  this  clause  and  the  next,  an  intermediate  thought  may  be 
supplied.  (I  tell  thee  this,  or  come  to  thee)  that  thou  may  est  come^  &c. 
This  is  better  than  I  in  ay  thee,  in  the  English  Bible,  which  attenuates 
the  meaning  of  the  particle  (ti/a,  not  merely  that^  but  so  that  or  in 
order  that)  and  changes  the  subjunctive  into  an  imperative.  That 
coming  thou  mayeat  lay  (impose)  on  her  the  hands^  implying  a  belief 
that  personal  presence  and  corporeal  contact  were  essential  to  the  cure ; 
an  error  which  our  Saviour  seems  in  this  case  to  have  overlooked, 
though  he  rebuked  it  and  corrected  it  in  others.  (Compare  John 
4,  40-54.)  So  that  (or  in  order  that),  a  different  conjunction  from 
the  one  in  the  preceding  clause,  but  here  substantially  equivalent  in 
meaning.  She  may  (or  might)  J)e  saved,  i.  e.  from  death,  which  seemed 
so  imminent,  that,  unless  miraculously  rescued,  she  was  dying  (Luke 
8,  42),  or  might  even  be  described  as  Just  dead  (Matt.  9,  18.)  And 
she  shall  live  is  not  superfluous,  but  expresses  both  the  sense  in  which 
he  wished  her  to  be  saved,  and  his  confidence  that  such  would  be  the 
issue,  if  the  Lord  would  come  and  la}'-  his  hands  upon  her. 

24.  And  (Jesus)  went  with  him ;  and   much  people 
followed  him,  and  thronged  him. 

And  he  (Jesus  being  found  in  no  Greek  manuscript,  and  needlessly 
supplied  in  the  translation)  icejit  away  (from  the  place  where  he  had 
landed,  or  was  standing  with  the  multitude)  with  him  (i.  e.  Jairus, 
which  might  just  as  well  have  been  supplied  as  Jesus),  and  much  peo- 
ple (literally,  croicd  or  rahhle)  as  denoting  not  mere  numbers  but  pro- 
miscuous gathering,  and  throng  or  pressure  (see  above,  on  v.  21,  &c.) 
The  idea  is,  that  many  crowded  after  him,  an  instance  of  the  way  in 
which  our  Lord  was  constantly  surrounded  and  accompanied  in  all  his 
movements,  and  explaining  why  he  now  and  then  escaped  into  the 
desert,  not  for  mere  repose,  but  for  devotional  retirement  (sec  above 
on  1,  35.)  The  crowd  not  only  folloiced  him,  but  thronged  (or 
squeezed)  him,  which  devotes  no  gentle  pressure  but  that  they  were 
suffocating,  stifling  him  (Luke  8,  42.)  This  circumstance  is  mentioned 
to  explain  another  afterwards  recorded  (in  v.  31  below),  while  Mat- 
thew omits  both,  and  only  speaks  of  the  disciples  following  (9,  19), 
which  may  however  mean  the  large  class  of  his  hearers,  probably  a 
vast  majority,  who  came  to  learn  of  him  and  believed  his  doctrines. 
(See  above,  on  2, 15-18.  3,  7.  9.  4,  84.) 

25.  And  a  certain  woman  which  had  an  issue  of  blood 

twelve  years, 

While  on  his  way  to  the  house  of  Jairus  he  performs  a  miracle, 
the  history  of  which  is  here  inserted  into  that  of  the  other  by  the  three 
evangelists,  precisely  as  it  happened,  a  strong  proof  of  authenticity  and 
vivid  recollection  on  the  part  of  the  eye-witnesses.  A  certain  woman 
whose  name,  as  usual,  is  not  recorded  (see  above,  1,  23.  30.  40.  2,  3. 


MARK  5,  25.  26.  27.  127 

3,  1.  5,  2),  that  of  Jairus  being  mentioned  (not  his  daughter's),  on  ac- 
count of  his  official  character  and  pubhc  station.  Being  in  a  flow  of 
'bloody  or  liemorrhage^  the  verbal  root  of  which  term  in  a  participial 
form  is  here  emplo3'ed  by  Matthew  (9,  80.)  The  precise  nature  of 
the  malady,  beyond  this  general  description,  is  of  no  importance,  even 
to  physicians,  much  less  to  the  mass  of  readers  and  interpreters.  In- 
stead of  dwelling  upon  this  point,  the  evangelists  direct  attention  to  its 
long  continuance  {twelve  years)  and  hopeless  state,  as  represented  in 
the  next  verse. 

26.  And  had  suffered  many  things  of  many  physicians, 
and  had  spent  all  that  she  had,  and  was  nothing  bettered, 
but  rather  grew  worse, 

And  Jiamng  suffered  (i.  e.  who  had  suffered)  many  {tilings)^  not 
onl}'  from  the  malady  itself,  \mifrom  many  2)^ysicians,  which  implies 
the  existence  of  a  medical  profession,  and  of  numerous  practitioners, 
whose  failure  to  relieve  this  sufTerer  no  more  argues  a  low  condition  of 
the  heahng  art  than  similar  results  at  this  day  in  the  hospitals  or 
private  practice  of  the  most  eminent  physicians  and  surgeons  both  of 
Europe  and  America.  And  having  spent  the  {things)  helonging  to  her, 
literally,  (coming  or  proceeding)  from  her,  a  peculiar  phrase  applied  to 
persons  in  3,  21  above  and  there  explained.  All  has  peculiar  emphasis 
because  not  prefixed  as  an  ordinary  epithet,  but  added  as  a  kind  of  supple- 
ment or  afterthought,  a  species  of  construction  both  common  and  effec- 
tive in  Greek  composition  (see  above,  on  4,  5.  15.  16.  17.  29  ),  although 
seldom  reproducible  in  anj''  version.  She  had  spent  her  substance,  yes 
the  whole  of  it,  in  this  way.  Such  a  price  she  might  have  been  content  to 
pay  for  a  restoration,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  thrown  away.  Noth- 
ing hettered^  literally  heneflted,  2)roflted,  i.  e.  in  this  connection,  not 
improved  in  health.  But  even  this  was  not  the  worst  of  her  deplora- 
ble condition.  Besides  expending  all  that  she  possessed,  which  seems 
to  have  been  no  contemptible  estate,  without  receiving  any  advantage 
in  return,  she  had  actually  lost  in  health  as  well  as  purse.  But  having 
rather  come  into  a  iDorse  (condition),  i.  e.  of  body,  as  appears  from  the 
antithesis  with  notliing  heitered  in  the  clause  preceding.  Here  again, 
the  case  described  not  only  bears  self-evident  credentials  of  its  truth 
and  origin  in  real  life,  but  meets  a  melancholy  echo  in  the  every-day 
experience  of  modern  times,  showing  not  only  the  substantial  sameness 
of  the  ills  which  flesh  is  heir  to,  but  the  wise  and  gracious  adapta- 
tion of  the  remedies,  both  moral  and  physical,  which  God  prescribes 
not  to  imaginary  or  ideal  cases,  but  to  those  under  which  the  race  has 
groaned  in  every  country  and  in  every  age. 

27.  When  she  had  heard  of  Jesus,  came  in  the  j^ress 
behind,  and  touched  his  garment : 

Hearing  (now)  or  having  heard  (before)  of  (about,  concerning) 
Jesus^  either  as  having  wrought  extraordinay  cures,  or  as  being  now 


128  MARK  5,  27.  28.  29. 

again  at  hand  or  in  the  neighbourhood.  Coming  in  the  press  (i.  e.  the 
crowd  or  throng)  l)eMnd,  or  more  cxa.ci\y  from  'beMiid^  i.  e.  approach- 
ing him  in  that  direction,  not  by  chance  or  from  necessity,  but  for  the 
purpose  of  escaping  observation.  She  touched  his  garment^  not  his 
clothes  in  general,  which  is  the  meaning  of  the  plural  in  the  next  verse, 
but  the  robe  or  gown,  which  forms  the  outer  garment  in  an  oriental 
dress,  and  which  the  Greek  word  in  the  singular  denotes.  What  she 
touched  was  not  only  this  external  garment,  but  its  very  edge  or  bor- 
der (Luke  8,  44),  showing  that  her  object  was  mere  contact,  so  that 
the  slightest  and  most  superficial  touch  would  be  sufficient.  It  is  im- 
portant, though  it  may  be  difficult,  to  reahze  the  situation  of  this 
woman,  once  possessed  of  health  and  wealth,  and  no  doubt  moving  in 
respectable  society,  now  beggared  and  diseased,  without  a  hope  of  hu- 
man help,  and  secretly  believing  in  the  power  of  the  Christ,  and  him 
alone,  to  heal  her,  yet  deterred  by  some  natural  misgiving  and  by 
shame,  perhaps  connected  with  the  nature  of  her  malady,  from  coming 
with  the  rest  to  be  publicly  recognized  and  then  relieved.  However 
common-place  the  case  may  seem  to  many,  there  are  some  in  whose 
experience,  when  clearly  seen  and  seriously  attended  to,  it  touches  a 
mysterious  chord  of  painful  sympathy. 

28.  For  she  said,  If  I  may  touch  but  his  clothes,  I 

shall  be  whole. 

That  she  was  not  actuated  merely  by  a  sort  of  desperate  curiosity, 
as  might  have  been  suspected  from  her  previous  history  and  present 
conduct,  but  by  real  confidence  in  Christ's  abilit}'  to  heal  her,  we  are 
expressly  taught  by  being  made  acquainted  with  her  inmost  thoughts 
before  her  purpose  was  accomplished.  For  she  said  (or  was  saying^  as 
she  made  her  way  with  difficult}''  through  the  crowd),  i.  e.  not  to  others 
and  aloud,  but  to  or  in  herself  (Matt.  9,  21)  (oVt,  that^  superfluous  in 
English,  see  above,  on  v.  23.)  If  I  touch,  not  may  touch,  which  sug- 
gests too  strongly  the  idea  of  permission  or  of  lawfulness,  whereas  the 
Greek  expresses  that  of  mere  contingency.  BuU  i.  e.  only,  even,  an 
expressive  compound  particle  in  Greek  which  occurs  again  below  (0, 
56.)  His  clothes,  the  plural  of  the  word  explained  above  (on  v.  27), 
and  denoting  the  whole  dress  or  any  part  of  it.  It  is  a  slight  but 
touching  stroke  in  this  inimitable  picture,  that  she  did  not  even  choose 
the  hem  of  his  outer  garment  as  the  part  which  she  would  touch,  but 
came  in  contact  with  it  as  it  were  by  chance,  desiring  only  to  touch  any 
of  his  clothes,  no  matter  which  or  what.  I  shall  he  whole,  literally 
saved,  i.  e.  from  this  disease  and  this  condition.  The  Greek  verb  is  the 
one  translated  healed  in  v.  23,  a  needless  variation,  and  indeed  injurious 
to  the  beauty  of  the  passage,  as  it  mars  the  correspondence  of  these 
two  expressions  of  reliance  upon  Christ,  uttered  almost  simultaneously 
by  persons  probably  entire  strangers  to  each  other. 

29.  And  straightway  the  fonutaiu  of  Jier  blood  was 
dried  up  ;  and  she  felt  in  (her)  body  that  she  was  healed 
'^^  that  i^la^-ue. 


MARK  5,  29.  30.  129 

.  And  immediately^  Mark's  favourite  expression  (see  above,  on  4  5. 
15.  IG.  17.  29),  but  as  usual  denoting  an  important  fact,  to  wit,  the 
instantaneous  effect  of  that  believing  but  almost  despairing  touch.  It 
is  strikingly  described  both  by  Matthew  (9,  22)  and  by  Luke  (8,  44), 
and  by  the  latter  as  some  think  with  professional  or  technical  precision, 
but  by  neither  with  such  fulness  and  minuteness  as  by  Mark,  who  has 
perhaps  preserved  to  us  the  vivid  recollection  of  Peter,  whom  we  know 
to  have  been  close  at  hand  (see  below,  on  v.  31.)  Dried  ^qy  (or  out, 
exhausted)  icas  the  fountain  oflier  Mood,  the  hidden  source  of  her  long 
sufferings,  which  all  the  skill  of  her  "  many  physicians  "  had  not  availed 
to  discover,  much  less  to  arrest.  And  she  Icnew  in  the  hody,  by  her 
bodily  sensations,  not  by  mere  conjecture  or  assurances  from  others, 
that  she  is  healed  (or  healing,  being  healed),  another  beautiful  allusion 
to  the  scene  as  actually  passing.  From  the  i^lague  (or  scourge),  a  figure 
used  above  in  3,  10,  and  there  explained 

30.  And  Jesiis,  immediately  knowing  in  himself  that 
virtue  had  gone  out  of  him,  turned  him  about  in  the  press, 
and  said,  Who  touched  my  clothes  ? 

And  immediately,  as  promptly  as  the  touch  had  acted  on  the 
woman's  body,  or  perhaps  at  the  same  moment.  Knowing  (or  ijer- 
ceiving)  in  himself,  without  external  indication  or  suggestion,  not  by 
bodily  sensation  but  by  intuition.  That  virtue  had  gone  out  of  him, 
or  rather,  knowing  in  himself  the  power  (or  influence)  proceeding  from 
him,  not  the  bare  fact  that  it  had  gone  out,  as  the  version  seems  to 
mean,  but  what  it  was  that  had  gone  out ;  and  knowing  it,  not  after- 
wards but  at  the  moment.  The  idea  of  some  writers  that  he  knew  by 
an  unusual  sensation  that  a  magical  virtue  had  gone  forth  from  him 
without  his  previous  knowledge  or  volition,  may  be  founded  partly  on 
the  use  of  the  word  virtue  in  the  common  version  to  translate  the  ordi- 
nary term  for  liower,  and  the  construction  of  the  participle  so  as  to 
refer  it  too  exclusively  to  what  was  past ;  but  it  is  also  founded  on  a 
false  and  mystical  conception  of  the  healing  power  exercised  by  Christ 
as  something  magical  or  any  thing  beyond  a  mere  act  of  his  will,  im- 
plying perfect  knowledge  and  deliberate  design  in  every  such  exertion 
'of  divine  prerogative.  Turning  or  l)eing  turned,  in  Greek  a  passive 
form,  but  with  an  active  or  deponent  sense.  In  the  irress  (or  crowd), 
hy  which  he  was  completelj^  hemmed  in  and  urged  onward,  so  that  the 
act  here  described  was  difficult,  and  to  any  other  would  perhaps  have 
been  impossible.  He  said,  who  touched  my  clothes  (or  garments?) 
There  are  two  false  views  of  this  proceeding  entertained  both  by  ordi- 
nar}^  readers  and  by  learned  writers.  The  first  is  that  the  question 
necessarily  implies  a  want  of  knowledge  or  is  tantamount  to  saying,  'I 
know  not,  and  I  wish  to  know,  who  touched  me.  '  The  absurdity  of 
this  rule  of  construction  may  be  tested  by  applying  it  to  other  cases, 
for  example  to  judicial  or  to  catechetical  interrogation.  If  the  principle 
be  sound,  every  question  put  to  a  witness  on  a  trial,  or  to  a  pupil  in 
examination,  is  an  acknowledgment  of  ignorance  in  him  who  asks  it, 
6* 


130  MARK  5,  30.  31.  32. 

The  other  folsc  view  is  that  if  our  Saviour  knew  who  touched  him,  then 
his  question  lays  him  open  to  the  worse  charge  of  deception  or  dissimu- 
lation, since  his  asking  it  implies  that  he  was  ignorant.  The  same 
reductio  ad  absurdum  as  before  may  be  applied  to  this  ethical  objection, 
which  proceeds  upon  the  false  interpretation  of  the  question  above 
given,  and  is  easily  disposed  of  by  a  simple  substitution  of  the  true 
analysis  or  paraphrase  which  is,  '  I  know  it,  but  I  wish  you  to  confess 
it,  for  your  own  sake,  and  as  due  to  me  by  whom  the  cure  has  been 
effected.' 

31.  And  Lis  disciples  said  unto  him,  Thou  seest 
the  multitude  thronging  thee,  and  sajest  thou,  Who 
touched  me  ? 

Hk  disciples,  either  in  the  wide  or  narrow  sense,  but  probably  the 
latter,  as  the  former  would  include  a  large  part  of'  the  multitude  itself. 
The  reference  may  here  be  to  that  body  intermediate  between  this 
multitude  and  the  twelve  apostles,  which  we  find  distinguished  from 
both  elsewhere.  (See  above  on  4,  10.)  It  will  then  mean  his  usual 
attendants  who  were  nearest  to  his  person  even  when  surrounded  by 
the  multitude.  Thou  seest  the  crowd  thronging  thee^  the  same  verb 
that  is  used  above  in  v.  24,  and  there  explained.  And  thou  sayest  (or 
say  est  thou)  the  only  difference  is  that  between  a  question  and  an 
exclamation,  both  expressive  of  surprise  or  wonder.  Nothing  could  be 
more  natural  than  this  speech  of  Peter  (Luke  8,  45)  and  the  rest,  or 
of  Peter  as  .the  spokesman  of  the  rest  (see  above,  on  3,  16),  on  hearing 
what  appeared  to  be  a  most  unreasonable  question,  without  any  means 
of  knowing  what  it  meant  or  why  it  had  been  asked.  The  effect  would 
have  been  very  different  if  they  had  known  at  that  time  what  they 
doubtless  knew  soon  afterwards,  that  when  their  Master  said,  Who 
touched  me  ?  he  meant  '  who  touched  me  just  now  in  the  hope  and  con- 
fidence that  it  would  cure  an  inveterate  disease  pronounced  incurable 
by  all  physicians  ? ' 

32.  And  he  looked  round  about  to  see  her  that  had 
done  this  thing. 

And  he  looTced  round  (aJwut  is  a  mere  adjunct  of  the  English  adverb, 
to  which  nothing  separately  corresponds  in  Greek)  to  see  the  one,  or 
the  woman  (as  the  article  is  feminine)  having  done  (or  who  had  done 
this)  i.  e.  who  had  touched  his  garment  for  the  purpose  before  men- 
tioned. Here  again  it  is  not  said  that  he  looked  round  to  see  (i.  e.  dis- 
cover) who  had  done  it,  but  to  see  her  who  (he  knew)  had  done  it ; 
for  the  very  gender  of  the  article  and  participle  (rrjv  Trmfjaaa-nv)  shows 
that  he  looked  round  not  in  doubt  but  at  a  definite  and  certain  object. 
This  distinction  is  by  no  means  unimportant.  as\  it  sweeps  away  the 
ground  of  the  assertion  that  our  Lord  is  licre  described  as  merely  feeling 
that  some  influence  had  gone  forth  from  him,  and  then  trjdng  to  dis- 


MARK  5,  32.  33.  34.  131 

cover  what  it  was  or  who  had  been  affected  by  it ;  an  interpretation 
equally  irreverent  and  ungrammatical. 

33.  But  tlie  woman,  fearing  and  trembling,  knowing 
what  was  done  in  her,  came  and  fell  down  before  him, 
and  told  him  all  the  truth. 

However  strange  the  question  and  the  searching  look  may  have  ap- 
peared to  others,  there  was  one  who  understood  them  perfectly,  because 
they  were  addressed  to  her  alone,  and  intended  not  to  ascertain  her 
person  but  to  make  her  show  herself  with  due  acknowledgments  of 
what  she  had  experienced.  Fearing,  or  more  exiictly,  frightened,  ter- 
rified, or  rather  awed  (see  above,  on  4, 41),  one  of  the  participles  being 
passive  and  the  other  active.  Tremhling,  as  the  outward  indication  of 
the  inward  feeling  just  described,  as  if  he  had  said,  trembling  with 
fear,  or  shuddering  with  awe.  This  fear  was  not  the  dread  of  punish- 
ment or  injury,  but  awful  reverence  combined  with  consciousness  of 
unworthiness  and  some  sense  of  misconduct  in  endeavouring  as  it 
were  to  steal  what  the  Saviour  would  so  freely  have  bestowed.  Know- 
ing (not  by  information  but  by  conscious  ease  and  felt  relief)  what  had 
happened  (or  'been  done)  to  ov  for  her  (according  to  the  common  text, 
upon  her,  or  according  to  the  common  version,  in  Tier.)  The  reading 
now  preferred  expresses  the  idea  of  advantage,  benefit,  not  mere  locality. 
Came  and  fell  before  him  {doion  is  introduced  by  the  translators,  as 
required  by  our  idiom  to  express  the  full  sense),  literally,  to^  at,  or 
against  him,  which  may  either  be  descriptive  of  a  violent  ungovernable 
movement  (compare  Matt.  7,  25),  or  an  ellipsis  for  the  fuller  phrases 
elsewhere  used  oi falling  at  the  feet  (7,  25)  or  at  the  Icnees  (Luke  5,  8) 
of  any  one.  The  shorter  form  occurs  above  (3.  11)  and  no  doubt  in 
the  same  sense,  though  the  falling  here  expressed  is  rather  that  of  deep 
humiliation  and  compunction  joined  with  fervent  gratitude  and  love. 
And  told  him  all  the  truth,  i.  e.  publicly  acknowledged  why  she 
touched  hiui  and  with  what  effect  (Luke  8,  47.)  This  no  more  implies 
that  he  did  not  previously  know  it,  than  our  ordinary  penitent  confes- 
sions of  sin  are  intended  to  inform  the  omniscient  God  of  our  offences. 

34.  And  he  said  unto  her.  Daughter,  thy  faith  hath 

made  thee  wliole  ;   go  in  peace,  and  be  wdiole  of  thy 

plague. 

We  have  here  an  eminent  example  of  our  Saviour's  divine  wisdom 
and  goodness.  As  he  had  not  asked  for  information,  but  to  make  the 
subject  of  the  miracle  come  forward  and  disclose  herself  j  so  even  this 
exposure  was  intended,  not  to  punish  or  deprive  her  of  the  benefit 
which  she  had  sought  to  gain  in  secret,  but  by  one  consummate  stroke 
of  justice  and  of  mercy,  to  reprove  her  fault  and  yet  reward  her  fjiith ; 
requiring  her  to  give  God  the  glory  and  to  come  to  Christ  as  others 
came,  but  at  the  same  time  to  assure  her  of  a  permanent  deliverance 
from  her  former  sufferings,  if  not  from  sin.     Daughter,  not  a  mere 


132  MARK  5,  34.  35. 

term  of  endearment,  but  a  recognition  of  the  new  relation  which  she 
now  sustained  to  him  as  one  of  his  own  spiritual  seed  (Isai.  53,  10. 
Heb.  2,  10.)  That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  term  here,  may  be 
argued  from  the  general  fact  that  he  employs  such  language  elsewhere 
not  as  an  expression  of  mere  human  sympathy  but  always  in  relation 
to  those  bound  to  him  by  spiritual  ties  (see  below,  on  10,  24,  and  com- 
pare John  21,  5),  and  also  from  the  special  case  of  the  paralytic  at 
Capernaum,  in  which  the  word  child  is  connected  with  the  solemn 
declaration  that  his  sins  were  pardoned  (see  above,  on  2,  5.)  This 
will  enable  us  to  put  the  right  sense  on  the  next  clause,  which  might 
otherwise  be  inadequately  understood.  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee,  thy 
reliance  on  my  healing  power,  although  marred  by  the  belief  that  even 
contact  was  required,  and  still  more  by  the  false  shame  which  tempted 
thee  to  steal  instead  of  asking,  has  delivered  thee  fi-om  thy  disease ; 
and  this  deliverance  is  but  a  pledge  and  symbol  of  a  greater  sal  vation 
wrought  by  faith  in  him  who  came  to  save  his  people  from  their  sins 
(Matt.  1,  21.)  Go  in peace^  literally,  de]jart  (or  go  aicay)  into  peace, 
i.  e.  into  a  permanent  condition  of  repose  and  freedom  from  thy  former 
sufferings,  both  bodily  and  spiritual.  And  he  ichole  (sound,  healthy) 
from  thy  plague  (or  scourge,  as  in  v.  29),  i.  e.  be  hereafter  or  forever, 
as  thou  now  art,  well  in  soul  and  body,  free  from  thy  disease  and  from 
the  wrath  of  God,  of  which  it  was  the  whip  or  rod  wherewith  he 
scourged  thee  for  thy  sins. 


35.  While  he  yet  spake,  there  came  from  the  ruler  of 
the  synagogue's  (house  certain)  which  said,  Thy  daughter 
is  dead  ;  why  troublest  thou  the  Master  any  further  ? 

Mark  now  resumes  his  history  of  the  other  miracle,  into  which 
this  was  inserted  as  a  sort  of  episode,  but  in  its  true  chronological 
connection,  as  appears  from  this  verse.  While  he  yet  spalce,  literally, 
lie  yet  speaTiing,  the  most  certain  indication  of  immediate  succession 
ever  used  by  the  evangelists.  (See  above  on  v.  22,  and  compare  Matt. 
9,  18.)  There  came  certain  (i.  e.  some),  or  more  simply  and  exactly, 
they  come,  either  in  the  same  indefinite  sense,  or  with  more  specific 
reference  to  his  servants  or  the  members  of  his  family.  From  the 
ruler  of  the  synagogue,  i.  e.  from  his  house,  as  correctly  supplied  in 
the  translation,  the  ruler  himself  being  present  already  (compare  the 
next  verse  with  verse  24  above.)  Thy  daughter  is  dead,  or,  as 
the  Greek  form  strictly  means,  thy  daughter  died,  some  time  ago,  or 
just  now,  as  had  been  expected.  Why  trouhlest  (or  annoyest)  thou, 
the  question  being  really  equivalent  to  a  prohibition  or  dissuasion, 
troublenot  (Luke  8,  49,)  The  master,  i.  e.  teacher  (magister),  which 
is  the  specific  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  here  used,  and  appears  to 
have  become  a  customary  designation  of  our  Lord,  implying  that  the 
people  never  lost  sight  of  his  claim  to  be  a  '•  teacher  come  from  God," 
of  which  his  miracles  were  the  credentials  (John  3,  2.) 


MARK  5,  36.  37.  133 

36.  As  soon  as  Jesus  heard  the  word  that  was  spoken, 
he  saith  unto  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  Be  not  afraid, 
only  believe. 

Another  beautiful  example  of  the  Saviour's  kindness.  Notwith- 
standing the  deficiency  of  faith  which  the  ruler  had  betrayed  by  in- 
sisting on  his  presence  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  miracle  (see 
above,  on  v.  23),  he  does  not  even  leave  him  in  suspense  but  hastens 
to  console  and  reassure  him.  Immediately  hearing  is  in  some  of  the 
oldest  copies  overliearing^  a  Greek  verb  used  by  Plato  in  that  sense, 
but  by  Polybius  in  that  of  pretending  not  to  hear,  or  refusing  to  listen, 
disregarding,  disobejnng,  which  appears  to  be  its  meaning  in  Matt.  18, 
17,  but  would  be  wholly  inappropriate  here,  where  if  genuine  it  can 
only  mean  that  Jesus  overheard  what  was  privately  addressed  to 
Jairus,  and  without  waiting  to  be  told  of  it,  immediately  dispelled  his 
fears.  The  word  that  loaa  spolcen.,  or  more  exactly,  the  word  spoTcen^ 
not  only  what  was  said,  but  as  (or  when)  they  said  it,  another  slight 
but  pleasing  indication  of  the  promptness  with  which  he  interposed  for 
the  relief  of  the  afflicted  father.  Be  not  afraid  (alarmed  or  fright- 
ened), as  he  no  doubt  was  at  this  distressing  news,  i.  e.  apprehensive 
that  he  had  applied  too  late,  and  that  the  case  was  now  beyond  the 
reach,  not  only  of  all  human  help,  but  even  of  the  wonder-working 
teacher's  power.  Only  helieve^  i.  e.  continue  to  believe,  as  3'ou  have 
done  thus  far,  in  my  capacity  to  help  you.  Or  the  sense  may-be,  only 
believe,  as  you  have  not  yet  done,  that  I  can  raise  the  dead  as  well  as 
heal  the  sick.  But  this,  although  it  might  be  latent  in  the  Saviour's 
words,  would  not  be  readily  suggested  by  them  to  the  ruler,  until 
afterwards  interpreted  by  the  event. 

37.  And  he  suffered  no  man  to  follow  him,  save  Peter, 
and  James,  and  John  the  brother  of  James. 

And  he  sujfered,  let,  permitted,  the  verb  used  above  in  v.  19,  and 
there  explained,  N'o  man,  literally,  no  one,  wliich  is  not  only  more 
exact  but  appropriate  wherever  the  Greek  word  occurs,  whereas  the 
other  is  in  some  connections  most  incongruous,  for  example  in  Matt.  11, 
27.  1  Cor.  2, 11,  where  it  is  applied  to  God.  (See  above,  on  2,21.  3, 
27.)  To  follow  him,  literally,  tofolloin  with  him,  which  might  here  be 
strictly  understood  as  meaning  to  follow  Jairus  icith  him  (see  Matt.  9, 
19) ;  but  the  original  construction  rather  indicates  the  sense,  to  follow 
(so  as  to  be)  with  him,  i.  e.  to  accompany,  but  still  as  a  dependant  or 
inferior,  which  meaning  is  appropriate  in  the  only  other  place  where  it 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  23,49),  as  well  as  sanctioned  by 
Thucj'dides  and  Xenophon.  The  three  apostles  are  here  named  in  the 
order  of  their  first  or  rather  second  vocation  (see  above,  on  1,  16-20), 
and  of  their  final  nomination  to  the  apostolic  office  (see  above,  on  3,  16. 
17.)  John  is  also  here  described  as  the  brother  of  James  (compare  3, 
17),  whereas  in  Acts  12,  2,  James  is  called  the  brother  of  John.  The 
three  thus  honoured  foi-med  a  kind  of  inner  circle  of  adherents,  still 


134  MARK  5,  37.  38.  39. 

more  close  and  confidential  than  that  of  the  twelve  in  which  it  was  in- 
cluded. That  it  was  not  a  fortuitous  selection,  or  occasioned  by  some 
special  circumstance  in  this  case,  is  apparent  from  its  repetition  in  two 
other  interesting  junctures  of  the  Saviour's  history,  his  Transfiguration 
(see  below,  on  Mark  9, 2)  and  his  Agony  (see  below,  on  14,  33.)  In 
all  these  cases  he  desired  as  much  privacy  as  was  consistent  with  the 
presence  of  witnesses  (see  below,  on  v.  43.) 

38.  And  he  cometli  to  the  house  of  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue,  and  seeth  the  tumult,  and  them  that  wept  and 
wailed  greatly. 

And  he  comes,  or  as  the  oldest  copies  read,  and  they  come,  which, 
from  the  collocation  here,  would  seem  to  mean  Jesus  and  Jairus  with 
the  three  apostles  only.  But  from  Luke's  account  (8,  51)  it  appears 
more  probable  that  the  selection  of  the  three  was  made  after  their  arri- 
val at  the  house,  which  is  entirely  consistent  with  jNIark's  statement 
although  not  so  readily  suggested  by  it.  Matthew  omits  the  message 
from  the  ruler's  house  and  the  selection  of  the  three  apostles,  while 
Mark  and  Luke  give  both,  a  striking  proof  that  Matthew  did  not  fur- 
nish their  materials.  And  he  sees,  beholds,  as  something  strange  and 
unexpected  (see  above,  on  v,  15)  a  tumult,  uproar,  clamour,  such  as 
commonly  attend  an  oriental  funeral,  although  the  child  was  scarcely 
dead.  Early  burial  was  usual  among  the  ancient  Jews,  because  it  was 
not  properly  interment,  but  a  deposit  of  the  body,  frequently  uncof- 
fined,  in  tombs  erected  above  ground,  or  lateral  excavations  in  the  rock, 
where  the  risk  of  death  by  premature  burial  was  much  less  than  it  is 
among  ourselves.  Compare  Acts  5,  6. 10,  where  an  additional  security 
against  such  a  mistake  existed  in  the  certain  knowledge  which  the 
apostles  had,  that  Ananias  and  Sapphira  were  completely  dead.  And 
(people)  weeping  and  wailing  (or  holding),  a  verb  derived  from  alala^ 
the  ancient  war-cry,  and  employed  by  Euripides  and  Xenophon  to  sig- 
nify the  act  of  raising  it,  but  by  the  former  also  in  the  sense  of  crjing 
out  for  pain,  from  which  the  transition  is  an  easy  one  to  the  cries  of 
mourners,  and  especially  of  the  mourning  women  hired  in  the  east  to 
attend  funerals.  Greatly,  literally,  many  (things),!. e.  much,  perhaps 
with  some  allusion  to  the  variety  of  sounds  as  well  as  the  amount  of 
noi.'^e.  (See  above,  on  vs.  10.  23,  and  compare  3, 12.)  Besides  these 
cries  there  was  funeral  music,  as  usual  on  such  occasions  (Matt.  9,  23.) 

39.  And  when  he  was  come  in,  he  saith  unto  them, 
Why  make  yc  this  ado,  and  weep  ?  the  damsel  is  not 
dead,  but  sleepeth. 

And  coming  in,  or  as  he  came  in  ;  tohen  he  was  come  in  suggests  an 
interval,  whereas  the  entrance  and  the  speech  appear  to  have  been  si- 
multaneous. He  says  to  them,  the  mourners  thus  employed  in  noisy 
lamentation.     Why  make  ye  this  ado,  a  nearly  obsolete  word  meaning 


MARK  5,  39.  40.  135 

bustle,  trouble,  here  employed  to  render  one  which  rather  means  dis- 
turbance, noise  and  tumult,  being  the  cognate  verbal  form  of  the  noun 
rendered  tumult  in  the  verse  preceding.  The  question,  as  usual  in 
such  connections,  implies  censure,  or  at  least  expostulation,  as  if  he  had 
said,  '  what  right  or  reason  have  j'ou  to  make  this  disturbance,  which 
would  only  be  appropriate  in  a  case  of  real  death,  but  this  child,'  &c. 
Thus  understood,  the  question  virtually  included  or  was  really  accom- 
panied or  followed  by  an  exhortation  not  to  weep  (Luke,  8,  52)  and  a 
peremptory  order  to  withdraw  (Matt.  9, 24.)  Damsel  is  in  Greek  of 
neuter  form  and  common  gender,  being  strictly  a  diminutive  of  one 
which  means  both  hoy  and  girl,  and  therefore  nearly  equivalent  to 
child^  though  not  the  one  emploj-ed  2,  6  above,  and  there  explained. 
The  connection,  not  the  form,  determines  it  in  this  place  to  denote  a 
little  girl.  Is  not  dead,  or  did  not  die  (when  ye  supposed),  the  same 
form  that  is  used  above  in  v.  35.  But  sleejjs,  is  sleeping,  or  asleep,  the 
present  tense  denoting  actual  condition,  as  the  aorist  before  it,  strictly 
understood,  denotes  a  previous  occurrence.  She  did  not  die  but  sleeps. 
These  words  admit  of  two  interpretations,  each  of  which  has  had  its 
advocates.  The  first  assigns  to  them  their  strictest  and  most  obvious 
sense,  to  wit  that  this  was  merely  an  apparent  death,  but  really  a  case 
of  stupor,  trance,  or  syncope,  which  might,  almost  without  a  figure,  be 
described  as  a  deep  protracted  slumber.  The  other  gives  a  figurative 
sense  to  both  expressions,  understanding  by  the  first  that  she  really 
was  dead  but  only  for  a  time  and  therefore  not  dead  in  the  ordinary 
acceptation  of  the  term;  and  by  the  second  that  her  death,  though  real, 
being  transient,  might  be  naturally  called  a  sleep,  which  differs  from 
death  chiefly  in  this  very  fact  and  the  effects  which  flow  from  it.  This 
last  is  now  very  commonly  agreed  upon  by  all  classes  of  interpreters, 
German  and  English,  neological  and  Christian,  as  the  only  meaning 
which  the  words  will  fairly  bear.  In  favour  of  this  sense  is  the  fact 
that  Jesus  used  the  same  expression  with  respect  to  Lazarus  and  ex- 
pressly declared  that  in  that  case  sleep  meant  death  (John  11, 11-14), 
to  which  may  be  added  that  Mark  is  here  recording  signal  miracles  as 
proofs  of  Christ's  extraordinary  power,  and  that  a  mere  restoration 
from  apparent  death  would  not  have  been  appropriate  to  his  present 
purpose.  One  of  the  best  German  philological  authorities  has  para- 
phrased our  Saviour's  words  as  meaning,  '  Do  not  regard  the  child  as 
dead,  but  think  of  her  as  merely  sleeping,  since  she  is  so  soon  to  come 
to  life  again.' 

40.  And  they  lauglied  him  to  scorn.  But,  when  he 
had  put  them  all  out,  he  taketh  the  father  and  the  mother 
of  the  damsel,  and  them  that  were  with  liim,  andentereth 
in  where  the  damsel  was  lying. 

And,  they  (i.  e.  the  company,  or  those  whem  he  had  thus  addressed) 
langhed  at  him  (or  against  him),  i.  e.  at  his  expense,  or  in  derision  of 
him.     This  idea  is  expressed  in  the  English  version  by  the  added  words, 


136  MARK  5,  40.  41. 

to  scorn^  which  though  not  expressed  in  the  original  are  not  italicized 
because  supposed  to  be  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  compound  Greek 
verb  which,  according  to  nnother  usage  of  the  particle  with  which  it  is 
compounded,  might  be  understood  to  mean,  theij  laugJied  Mm  dozen,  or 
silenced  him  by  their  derision.  Luke  adds  (8,53),  Tcnoicing  that  she 
teas  dead  (or  did  die),  an  expression  which  the  writer  would  not  have 
employed  if  they  had  been  mistaken  in  so  thinking.  Bat  he,  having 
cast  out  (i.  e.  forcibly  excluded,  or  at  least  peremptorily  dismissed)  all 
(the  mourners,  those  who  were  the  authors  of  the  uproar),  taJces 
along  (with  him.  or  in  his  company,  compare  the  same  verb  as  em- 
ployed above,  4,  36,  and  below,  9, 2.  10,  32.  14,  33.)  Those  icith  him 
(when  he  came),  i.  e.  the  three  apostles  named  in  v.  37.  lie  goes  in 
(graphically  represented  as  an  act  now  passing)  ichere  the  child  was 
(already)  at  the  time  of  his  arrival.  Lying  is  omitted  by  the  latest 
critics,  as  an  unauthorized  addition  to  the  text,  supposed  by  some 
transcriber  to  be  needed  to  complete  the  sense.  The  entrance  here 
described  is  different  from  that  in  vs.  38.  39,  which  was  into  the  house, 
whereas  this  is  into  some  inner  apartment,  probably  the  large  upper 
room  near  the  roof  (vnepMou),  which  seems  to  have  been  used  on  such 
occasions  (compare  Acts  9,  37.  39.) 

41.  And  lie  took  the  damsel  by  tlie  hand,  and  said 

unto    lier,   Talitlia-cumi ;    which    is,    being    interpreted, 

Damsel,  (I  say  unto  thee,)  arise. 

And  seizing,  laying  hold,  originally  mastering,  exercising  strength 
or  power,  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  applied  both  to  friendly 
and  to  hostile  seizures.*  (See  above,  1,  31.  3,  21,  and  below,  6, 17.  9, 
27.  12, 12.  14, 1.  44-51.)  In  condescension  to  the  weakness  of  the 
father's  faith,  our  Lord  establishes  a  visible  communication  between  his 
own  person  and  that  of  the  subject  upon  whom  the  miracle  was  to  be 
wrought.  For  the  same  reason  he  made  use  of  audible  expressions 
serving  to  identif}^  himself  as  the  performer.  These  expressions,  in 
the  present  case,  have  been  preserved,  not  only  in  a  Greek  translation, 
but  in  their  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  form  as  originally  uttered.  This  is 
one  of  the  characteristic  features  of  Mark's  Gospel,  commonly  referred 
to  the  vivid  impression  made  by  certain  worcls  of  Christ  upon  the 
memory  of  Peter,  by  whom,  according  to  the  old  tradition,  they  were 
made  known  to  the  evangelist.  Though  not  historically  certain,  this 
hypothesis  accounts  for  the  otherwise  extraordinary  fact,  that  these 
ipsissima  verda  of  the  Saviour,  in  his  native  tongue  and  that  which  he 
employed  in  his  instructions,  are  recorded  for  the  most  part,  not  by  an 
apostle  and  eye-witness,  such  as  John  or  Mattliew,  but  by  one  who, 
although  gifted  with  an  equal  inspiration,  personally  holds  a  secondary 
place  among  the  sacred  writers.  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that 
these  original  expressions  are  most  frequent  in  a  book  primarily  writ- 
ten for  the  use  of  Gentile  and  particularly  Eoman  readers,  which  may 
be  the  reason  of  its  many  latinisms  both  of  diction  and  construction,  its 
still  more  numerous  exi)lanalions  of  localities  and  Jewish  customs^  and 


M  A  R  K  5,  41.  42.  43.  137 

its  careful  Greek  translations  of  the  Aramaic  formulas  in  question,  of 
which  we  have  an  instance  in  the  verse  before  us.  Talitha,  an  Aramaic 
noun  of  Hebrew  origin,  in  the  feminine  emphatic  form.  Koumi,  a  cor- 
responding verbal  form,  the  feminine  imperative  Izal^  which  is  the  same 
in  both  Semitic  dialects.  These  two  words  must  have  long  rung  in  the 
ears  and  dwelt  upon  the  memory  of  those  who  witnessed  this  first 
recorded  miracle  of  resuscitation.  For  the  benefit  of  those  who  did  not 
understand  the  eastern  tongue,  the  words  are  accurately  rendered  into 
Greek.  Damsel,  not  the  word  so  rendered  in  v.  39,  though  like  it  a 
diminutive  of  (Kopr])  girl,  as  that  is  of  the  common  noun  (nals),  mean- 
ing either  boy  or  girl.  The  former  is  confined  in  the  older  classics  to 
the  dialect  of  common  life,  as  a  familiar  term  of  fondness  and  endear- 
ment ;  but  the  later  writers  use  it  in  the  more  serious  and  elevated 
style.  /  say  to  thee  forms  no  part  of  the  text,  though  it  may  be  an 
expression  actually  used  upon  the  same  occasion  but  recorded  here  in 
Greek  alone.  Or  it  may  be  inserted  simply  to  give  emphasis  and  point 
to  the  address  as  uttered  in  a  tone  of  authority  and  in  his  own  name 
as  entitled  to  command.  Arise,  or  rouse  (thyself),  the  middle  voice 
(or  reciprocal  form)  of  a  verb  which  strictly  means  to  awaken  out  of 
sleep.  It  might  even  be  translated  here  aicahe,  which  makes  it  still 
more  striking  and  appropriate  as  addressed  to  one  whom  Christ  him- 
self had  just  before  described  as  being  not  dead  but  sleeping. 

42.  And  straightway  the  damsel  arose,  and  walked  ; 
for  she  w\as  (of  the  age)  of  twelve  years.  And  they  were 
astonished  with  a  great  astonishment. 

And  immediately,  Mark's  favourite  adverb,  doubled  here  by  several 
of  the  oldest  manuscripts,  which  have  it  in  the  last  clause  also.  It 
marks  the  important  fact  that  in  this,  as  in  all  other  cases  except  those 
where  a  gradual  process  is  expressly  mentioned,  the  recovery  of  health 
was  instantaneous  without  any  interval  of  convalescence ;  while  this 
essential  f\ict  remains  the  same,  there  is  a  beautiful  distinction  in  the 
acts  by  which  it  was  attested.  While  Peter's  wife's  mother,  as  the 
mistress  of  a  household,  showed  her  perfect  restoration  b}""  immediately 
resuming  her  domestic  duties,  so  the  young  girl,  in  the  case  before  us, 
proved  the  same  thing  when  she  simply  tcalhed  adout  the  house  or 
chamber  where  she  had  been  lying  dead.  From  the  previous  narrative, 
as  found  in  Mark,  it  might  have  been  supposed  that  she  was  a  mere 
infant,  to  correct  which  error  arid  account  for  her  walking,  Mark  inserts 
at  this  point  what  was  stated  by  Luke  earlier  (8,  42),  to  wit,  that  she 
was  twelve  ^^ears  old.  And  they,  the  witnesses,  especially  her  parents 
(Luke  8,  56),  icere  amazed  with  great  amazement,  the  verb  used  above 
in  2,  12.  3,  21,  and  there  explained. 

43.  And  he  charged  them  straitly  that  no  man 
should  know  it ;  and  commanded  that  something  should 
be  given  her  to  eat. 


138  MARK  5,  43 


Mark  here  describes  our  Lord  as  exercising  that  divine  discretion 
which  in  every  case  determined  -whether  the  publication  of  his  miracles 
required  to  be  stimulated  or  retarded,  though  the  grounds  of  the  dis- 
tinction may  be  now,  and  may  have  been  at  first,  inscrutable  to  human 
wisdom.  The  very  verb  translated  charged,  by  its  et^'mology,  suggests 
the  idea  of  distinction  or  discrimination,  and  may  be  emploj^ed  here  for 
the  purpose  of  reminding  us  that  this  discouragement  of  public  rumours 
rested  upon  no  fixed  law  or  general  rule  but  on  the  wisdom  and 
authorit}^  of  him  who  uttered  it.  Matthew's  omission  of  this  circum- 
stance, and  substituted  statement,  that  his  fame  went  out  into  all  that 
land,  might  have  seemed  contradictory  to  that  of  Mark  and  Luke  (8, 
5G),  as  some  interpreters  do  reall}''  affect  to  think  it,  if  we  had  not  had 
already  (see  above,  on  1,  45)  both  these  statements  made  by  two 
evangelists  in  reference  to  one  and  the  same  case.  The  last  stroke  in 
Mark's  picture  of  this  beautiful  domestic  scene  is  not  to  be  neglected. 
He  commanded  (literally  mid  or  told^  to  he  given  (i.  e.  something  to  be 
given)  her  to  eat.  While  this  shows,  upon  one  hand,  his  benignant 
recollection  of  the  wants  of  this  resuscitated  child,  which  her  very 
mother  seems  to  have  forgotten,  or  the  order  would  have  been  super- 
fluous ;  it  answers,  on  the  other  hand,  the  still  more  interesting  purpose 
of  exemplifjnng  the  important  general  fact  that  when  a  miracle  of  heal- 
ing or  resuscitation  had  been  wrought,  its  effect  was  not  only  instanta- 
neous and  complete  in  restoring  health  or  life,  but  left  the  subject  as 
dependent  as  he  was  before  upon  the  ordinar}^  means  and  sources  of 
subsistence,  instead  of  feeding  him,  as  some  might  have  expected,  upon 
angels'  food,  or  raising  him  above  the  vulgar  need  of  being  fed  at  all. 


•*• 


CHAPTEE  VI. 

The  historian  here  pauses,  in  his  glowing  account  of  Christ's  triumph- 
ant manifestation  as  the  true  Messiah,  to  contrast  with  it  a  singular 
exception  to  the  general  enthusiasm,  namely,  his  rejection  by  his  earliest 
acquaintances  and  neighbours  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  (1-C.) 
With  this  rejection  he  contrasts  again  the  indefatigable  labours  of  the 
Saviour  elsewhere,  both  in  person  and  by  proxy,  that  is,  through  the 
twelve  apostles,  whose  actual  going  forth  is  here  recorded,  with  a  sum- 
mary account  of  his  instructions  and  of  their  success  (Y-IS.)  Among 
the  effects  of  this  multiplied  and  wide-spread  agency,  Mark  specially 
describes  that  produced  upon  the  ruler  of  Galilee,  the  murderer  of  John 
the  Baptist,  an  event  which  the  historian  here  goes  back  to  relate  (14- 
29.')  Then,  resuming  his  account  of  our  Lord's  ministr}',  he  mentions 
the  return  of  the  apostles,  their  report  of  their  proceedings,  and  their 
withdrawing  with  their  master  to  the  desert  for  the  sake  of  rest  (30-32.) 
But  even  here  they  are  followed  or  preceded  by  an  eager  crowd,  whose 


MARK  6,  1.  139 

physical  and  moral  wants  excite  the  Saviour's  pity  and  afford  occasion 
for  a  signal  miracle,  wholly  unlike  those  previously  mentioned,  and 
affording  a  new  proof  of  his  almightj''  power  (33—44.)  This  was  imme- 
diately succeeded  by  another,  no  less  new  and  demonstrative  of  his 
dominion  over  nature  (45-52.)  To  this  series  of  selected  and  decisive 
miracles,  Mark  adds,  as  if  to  show  that  they  are  merely  samples,  chosen 
and  presented  for  a  special  purpose,  a  more  general  account  of  his 
miraculous  healings  in  the  district  of  Gennesaret,  and  of  the  general 
attention  thus  continually  re-awakened  throughout  all  that  part  of 
Palestine,  in  which,  according  to  the  prophecies,  the  light  of  the  Mes- 
siah's advent  was  to  shine  most  brightly  (53-56.) 

1.  And  he  went  out  from  thence,  and  came  into  his 
own  country ;  and  his  disciples  follow  him. 

JNiot  the  least  striking  and  affecting  part  of  Christ's  humiliation 
was  the  treatment  which  he  met  with  from  his  nearest  friends,  or 
those  who  might  have  been  supposed  to  be  such,  either  from  natural 
relationship  or  from  long  association  and  acquaintance.  We  have 
already  met  with  several  indications  of  imperfect  faith  and  narrow 
views  upon  the  part  of  such  (see  above,  on  3,  21.  31)  ;  but  the  history 
of  his  mission  would  have  been  defective  without  a  more  detailed 
account  of  one  extraordinary  scene,  in  which  the  same  thing  took 
place  on  a  larger  scale  and  still  more  publicly.  This  was  his  reception 
on  returning  to  the  place  where  he  had  spent  his  childhood,  and  from 
which  he  came  to  be  baptized  in  Jordan  (see  above,  on  1,  9.)  The 
precise  chronology  of  this  transaction  is  of  little  moment  except  as 
involved  in  the  question  of  its  identity  with  that  recorded  in  a  different 
connection  by  Luke  (4,  16-31.)  As  the  scene  of  both  is  Nazareth, 
and  the  principal  incident  in  both  our  Lord's  rejection  by  his  old  ac- 
quaintances and  neighbours  there,  the  first  presumption  is  of  course  in 
favour  of  their  sameness.  Even  the  difference  in  particulars,  especially 
Mark's  silence  as  to  Christ's  interpretation  of  Isaiah,  the  resentment 
of  the  people,  and  their  violent  attempt  upon  his  life,  might  be  ex- 
plained, at  least  upon  the  sceptical  hypothesis  of  two  incongruous  tra- 
ditions as  to  one  event.  But  all  necessity  and  pretext  for  resorting  to 
such  explanations,  and  indeed  the  whole  presumption  of  identity,  are 
happily  removed  by  Matthew,  who  affords  a  parallel  to  both  accounts 
in  very  different  connections,  thus  establishing  the  fact  of  their  diversity. 
Luke's  account  of  the  affair  at  Nazareth  closes  (4,  31)  with  a  state- 
ment that  he  went  thence  to  Capernaum,  another  town  of  Galilee, 
which  formal  and  particular  description  shows  that  he  is  speaking  of 
our  Lord's  removal  to  that  place  as  the  appointed  centre  of  his  future 
operations.  Now  this  same  removal  is  recorded  with  more  brevity  by 
Matthew,  in  inmiediate  connection  with  our  Lord's  withdrawing  from 
Judea  into  Galilee  on  John's  imprisonment  (Matt.  4,  12.  13.)  But 
the  same  evangelist,  much  later  in  his  narrative,  records  a  visit  and 
rejection  of  our  Lord  at  Nazareth,  in  terms  almost  identical  with 
those  of  Mark  (Matt.  13,  54-5c^.)   It  was  therefore  a  second  occurrence 


140  MARK  G,  1.  2. 

of  the  same  kind,  which  is  so  far  from  being  in  itself  improbable,  that 
it  would  have  been  strange  and  out  of  keeping  with  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  Saviour's  conduct,  if  in  the  course  of  his  perpetual  circuits 
through  all  Galilee,  he  never  had  revisited  his  old  home  and  renewed 
the  invitations  which  the  people  there  had  once  rejected.  Luke's 
silence  in  relation  to  this  second  visit  is  explained  by  his  particular 
account  of  the  first,  whereas  Matthew,  having  merely  noted  the  re- 
moval, without  any  indication  of  the  reasons,  could  describe  the  second 
visit  without  irksome  repetition.  The  different  connection  in  which 
Mark  and  Matthew  introduce  this  narrative  is  unimportant,  as  the 
mere  chronology  was  nothing  to  their  purpose  of  exemplifjnng  the  re- 
ception and  etfect  of  our  Lord's  ministr}'-  in  various  cases.  There 
^  is  no  inconsistency,  however,  Matthew  (13,  54)  merely  sa3nng  that  he 
came  into  his  own  country,  without  adding  when  or  whence,  while 
Mark  prefixes  to  these  words  the  statement  that  lie  icent  out  (or  de- 
parted) thence,  which  can  only  mean  from  Capernaum  or  its  neighbour- 
hood, where  he  had  performed  the  two  miracles  last  recorded  (see 
above,  on  5,  21,  and  com.pare  Matt.  9,  1.)  His  country  (fatherland, 
narpis  from  Trarrjp).  not  in  tlie  wide  sense  now  attached  to  this  term, 
but  in  that  of  native  place,  ancestral  residence.  This  description  ap- 
plied elsewhere  (John  4.  4G)  to  all  Galilee,  as  distinguished  from 
Judea,  is  here  used,  with  equal  propriet}'-,  to  distinguish  one  town  of 
Galilee  from  another.  In  the  same  sense  that  Galilee  was  his  native 
province.  Nazareth  was  his  native  town  ;  for  though  not  actually  born 
in  either,  his  parents  (Luke  2.  27.  41)  had  resided  there  before  his 
birth  (Luke  1,  2G.  27.  2,  4).  and  he  had  been  brought  up  there  from 
his  infancy  (Matt.  2,  23.  Luke  2,  51.  52),  so  that  he  was  universally 
regarded  as  a  Galilean  and  a  Nazarene  (see  above,  on  1,  24.)  ///6'  dis- 
cijdes^  either  in  the  strict  sense  of  his  twelve  apostles  (see  above,  on  3, 
14),  or  the  wider  sense  of  his  believing  hearers  and  habitual  attend- 
ants (see  above,  on  4,  10.)  Follow  him,  the  graphic  present  tense, 
which  represents  the  scene  as  actually  passing. 

2.  And  wlieii  the  sabbatli-day  was  come,  he  began  to 
teach  in  the  synagogue  :  and  many  hearing  (him)  were 
astonished,  sajing,  From  wlience  hath  tliis  (man)  these 
things  ?  and  what  wisdom  (is)  this  which  is  given  nnto 
him,  that  even  such  mighty  works  are  wronglit  by  liis 
hands  ? 

And  it  heing  saJjhath  (or  the  sabbath  having  come),  the  Greek  verb 
being  not  the  mere  verb  of  existence,  but  one  meaning  strictly'  to  be- 
come or  to  begin  to  be,  and  therefoie  often  rendered  by  the  Enghsh 
verbs  to  happen,  come  to  pass,  &c.  (see  above,  on  1,  4.  2,  15.  4,  4.  5, 
14.  IG.  33.  and  as  to  the  observance  of  the  sabbath,  on  1,  21.  2,  23. 
3,  2.)  lie  licgan^  not  j)leonastic  ])ut  implying  interruption,  or  that  he 
was  still  employed  in  this  way  when  the  subsequent  occurrences  took 
place.     (See  above,  on  1,  45.  2,23.  4,1.  5.17.  20.)     In  the  synagogue^ 


MARK   6,  2.  3.  141 

or  stated  meeting  for  religious  worship,  the  Greek  word,  hke  its  Enghsh 
equivalent  and  several  others,  such  as  churchy  court,  school,  being 
sometimes,  but  not  necessarily  or  alwa3'S,  transferred  to  the  place  and 
even  to  the  building.  For  a  clear  view  of  this  natural  transition, 
compare  Luke  7,  5,  where  it  could  not  be  the  meeting  that  was  built, 
with  Acts  13,  43,  where  it  could  not  be  the  building  that  was  broken 
up.  We  find  here  exemplified  two  of  our  Lord's  habits,  that  of 
personal  attendance  on  the  synagogue  worship,  and  that  of  ofBcial  or 
authoritative  teaching  upon  such  occasions  (see  above,  on  1,  21.  39. 
3,  1.)  This  was  allowed  partly  in  accordance  with  a  customary  license 
of  instruction,  not  entirely  unknown  among  the  modern  Jews,  but 
chiefly  on  account  of  Christ's  miraculous  credentials  as  a  teacher  come 
from  God  and  recognized  as  such  hj  other  teachers  even  of  the  highest 
rank  when  free  from  party-spirit  and  malignant  prepossession.  (See 
above,  on  1,  22,  and  compare  John  3,  2.  10.  7,  50.)  Many  (or  as  some 
old  copies  read,  the  many,  i.  e.  the  majority,  the  mass)  hearing  were 
struclc  (with  wonder  or  amazement),  the  same  phrase  and  descriptive 
of  the  same  efiect  as  that  recorded  in  1,  22,  but  very  different  as  to 
the  conclusion  drawn  from  it.  For  in  the  former  case  it  led  the 
hearers  at  Capernaum  to  contrast  him  as  a  teacher  with  the  scribes 
very  much  to  his  advantage,  while  in  this  his  old  acquaintances  com- 
pare his  miracles  and  teachings  with  his  humble  origin  and  early  resi- 
dence among  themselves,  as  a  pretext  for  disparaging  if  not  rejecting 
his  pretensions.  This  unfriendly  prepossession  is  expressed  indirectly 
by  their  sneering  questions.  Whence  to  this  {one)  these  {things)  ?  i.  e.  how 
has  he  obtained  them  ?  What  {is)  the  icisdom,  the  {wisdom)  given  to  him. 
i.  e.  imparted  from  above,  thereby  acknowledging  his  inspiration,  but 
not  without  a  sneer  at  his  v.isdom  as  belonging  to  another  rather  than 
himself,  lliat  (or.  according  to  the  latest  critics,  and)  such  (or  so 
great)  2)0icers  (i.  e.  proofs  of  superhuman  power)  dy  (or  through)  his 
hands  (or  instrumental  agenc}')  are  done  (or  co7ne  to  pass,  the  same 
verb  that  is  used  in  the  first  clause  and  there  explained.)  They  do 
not  venture  to  den}^  his  wisdom  or  his  miracles,  but  by  wondering  at 
them  really  bear  witness  to  them.  This  is  only  one  of  many  proofs  that 
the  reality  of  Christ's  miraculous  performances  was  never  called  in 
question  either  by  his  unbelieving  friends  or  by  his  most  malignant 
enemies  (see  above,  on  3,  22.)  That  this  admission  left  them  inexcusable 
both  intellectually  and  morally  for  not  receiving  Jesus  as  the  true  Mes- 
siah, far  from  proving  that  they  could  not  thus  have  spoken,  only  shows 
that  their  affections,  envy,  jealousy,  and  malice,  were  too  strong  for 
their  rational  convictions,  so  that  in  the  very  act  of  wondering  at  the 
proofs  of  his  divine  legation,  they  rejected  and  denied  it.  This  incon- 
sistency, instead  of  being  '•  unpsychological "  or  contradicted  by  the 
laws  of  human  nature,  is  continually  verified  in  every  day's  experi- 
ence, contributing  with  many  other  proofs  to  show  the  irrationality  of 
unbelief  and  sin  in  general. 

3.  Is  not  this  the  carpenter,   the  son  of  Mary,  the 
brother  of  James,  of  Joses,  and  of  Judas,  and  Simon  ? 


142  MARK  6,  3. 

and  are  not  liis  sisters  here  with  ns  ?     And  they  were 
offended  at  him. 

The  general  expression  of  contemptuous  incredulity  is  followed  by 
a  still  more  invidious  allusion  to  his  connections  and  associations, 
equivalent  to  saying,  '  we  know  all  about  this  boasted  wonder-worker 
and  instructor,  who  and  what  ho  is,  and  whence  he  drew  his  origin, 
that  is,  among  ourselves,  to  whom  he  now  assumes  such  vast  superi- 
ority.' This  is  the  language  not  of  reason  but  of  passion,  since  the 
circumstances  mentioned  only  served  to  enhance  the  proof  of  that 
superiority  which  they  repined  at,  though  they  could  not  question  or 
deny  it.  Is  not  this  the  carpenter  ?  The  Greek  word  sometimes 
means  an  artisan  or  artificer  in  general,  which  some  lexicographers 
consider  its  original  import  as  indicated  by  its  etymology  (connecting 
it  with  Texvr),  art),  and  by  its  combination  with  the  names  of  certain 
metals  to  denote  those  who  are  constantly  employed  about  them. 
Others  explain  this  as  a  mere  occasional  extension  of  the  usual  and 
strict  sense,  which  is  that  of  any  workman  in  wood,  and  still  more 
specifically,  a  carpenter  or  joiner,  which  an  uniform  tradition  represents 
as  Joseph's  occupation.  It  is  not  here  spoken  of  as  even  a  comparatively 
mean  employment,  that  of  building  having  alwa3^s  been  regarded  as 
among  the  most  respectable  and  even  intellectual  of  manual  occupa- 
tions. There  was  no  intention,  on  the  part  of  those  here  speaking,  to 
put  Jesus  lower  tlian  themselves,  but  simply  on  a  level  with  them. 
What  they  tacitly  repudiate  is  not  his  claim  to  be  their  equal,  but  their 
better  or  superior  in  an  infinite  degree.  This  pretension,  though 
attested  by  acknowledged  miracle  and  inspiration,  they  endeavour,  in 
a  natural  but  foolish  manner,  to  invalidate  by  urging  his  original 
equality  in  rank  and  occupation  with  themselves.  Or  rather  it  is  not 
an  argumentative  objection,  but  a  mere  expression  of  surprise,  like 
that  which  would  be  felt,  though  ja  a  less  degree,  in  any  obscure  neigh- 
bourhood, at  the  appearance  of  an  old  acquaintance  in  the  new  condi- 
tion of  a  rich  man  or  a  nobleman.  This  clause  has  been  unduly  pressed 
by  some  as  proving  that  our  Lord  did  actually  work  at  the  trade  of  his 
reputed  father.  However  probable  this  may  be  in  itself,  and  however 
little  it  may  derogate  from  the  Redeemer's  honour,  it  cannot  be  cer- 
tainly inferred  from  these  Avords,  and  for  several  reasons.  In  the  first 
place,  they  are  not  the  words  of  the  evangelist  himself,  but  of  the  people 
in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  uttered  under  great  excitement,  and 
directly  prompted  by  their  jealousy  and  envy,  which  would  naturally 
lead  them  to  exaggerate  rather  than  extenuate  the  humbling  facts  of 
Clirist's  original  condition.  In  the  next  place,  the  words  themselves, 
when  uttered  hastily  and  carelessly,  might  simply  mean  the  son  of 
Joseph,  who  was  well  known  as  a  carpenter  among  them,  just  as  the 
sons  of  foreigners  among  ourselves,  though  natives  of  the  soil,  are  often 
spoken  of  as  Irishmen  or  Dutchmen.  In  the  third  place,  this  is  actu- 
ally given  as  the  meaning  of  the  question,  if  not  as  its  very  form,  by 
^Matthew  (lo,  55.)  Is  not  this  the  carpenter^s  son?  And  lastly,  though 
the  question  is  not  to  be  settled  upon  any  sentimental  ground  or  false 


MARK   6,  3.  143 

assumption  that  the  Son  of  God  would  have  been  any  more  degraded 
by  this  kind  of  labour  than  by  taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant, 
which  includes  all  possible  humiliation  free  from  sin.  yet  every  reader 
feels  that  there  were  other  more  appropriate  employments  even  in  his 
years  of  preparation  for  the  work  that  followed.  All  this  is  intended, 
not  to  disprove  the  fact  alleged  by  these  unfriendly  Nazarenes,  but 
simply  to  deny  that  their  alleging  it,  or  interrogatively  presupposing 
it,  is  any  demonstration  of  the  fact  itself,  which  may  be  therefore  left  to 
be  determined  by  each  reader  at  his  own  discretion.  The  son  of  Mary., 
added  here  to  discriminate  the  person  of  the  carpenter  referred  to,  cor- 
responds to  a  separate  demand  in  Matthew,  Is  not  his  mother  called 
Mary?  And  (or  hut)  the  hrother  of  James,  &c.  The  immemorial 
dispute  as  to  the  brothers  of  the  Lord  has  been  already  mentioned  (see 
above,  on  8,  31.)  Those  who  interpret  that  expression  as  denoting 
brothers  in  the  strict  sense,  i.  e.  sons  of  the  same  mother  (fratres 
uterinos),  lay  great  stress  upon  the  passage  now  before  us  and  its  par- 
allel in  Matthew  (13,  55.)  But  even  taken  in  the  strictest  sense  it  only 
proves  that  these  were  sons  of  Joseph,  not  necessarily  by  Mary,  but 
perhaps  by  a  former  marriage,  a  traditional  interpretation  running  back 
into  remote  antiquity.  Others  insist  upon  the  wide  use  of  brother,  in 
the  oriental  idiom  and  in  Scripture,  to  denote  almost  any  near  relation, 
whether  natural  or  moral,  such  as  that  of  fellow-men,  otherwise  called 
neighbours  (Matt.  5,  22),  that  of  friends  and  associates  (Matt.  5,  47), 
that  of  fellow-Jews  (Acts  2,  29),  that  of  fellow-Christians  (Acts  1,  IG), 
that  of  fellow-ministers  (1  Cor.  1, 1.)  A  word  admitting  of  such  various 
applications  cannot  of  itself  determine  which  is  meant  in  any  given  case. 
Nor  is  there  any  principle  or  general  law  of  language  which  forbids  our 
giving  to  the  term  as  here  used  the  same  meaning  that  it  obviously  has 
in  Gen.  14,  14. 16,  that  of  a  near  relative  or  kinsman.  The  presump- 
tion, however,  here  and  elsewhere,  is  in  favour  of  the  strict  construction  ; 
nor  would  any  have  doubted  that  the  brothers  of  Christ  were  the  sons 
of  Mary,  but  for  certain  adventitious  and  collateral  objections  to  that 
obvious  interpretation.  These  are  chiefly  two,  the  one  of  great  an 
tiquity,  the  other  of  more  recent  date.  'The  first  is  a  repugnance  to 
admit  that  Mary  was  the  mother  of  any  but  of  Christ  himself.  This 
repugnance,  although  found  in  connection  with  many  superstitious 
notions  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  not  confined  to  it.  Not  only  do  the 
symbols  or  standards  of  the  Lutheran  and  of  some  Reformed  churches 
teach  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary  as  an  article  of  faith,  but  multi- 
tudes of  Protestant  divines  and  others,  independently  of  all  creeds  and 
confessions,  have  believed,  or  rather  felt,  that  the  selection  of  a  woman 
to  be  the  mother  of  the  Lord  carries  with  it  as  a  necessary  implication 
that  no  others  could  sustain  the  same  relation  to  her ;  and  that  the 
selection  of  a  virgin  still  more  necessarily  implied  that  she  was  to  con- 
tinue so  ;  for  if  there  be  nothing  in  the  birth  of  younger  children  incon- 
sistent with  her  maternal  relation  to  the  Saviour,  why  should  there  be 
any  such  repugnance  in  the  birth  of  older  children  likewise  ?  If  for 
any  reason,  whether  known  to  us  or  not,  it  was  necessary  that  the 
mother  of  our  Lord  should  be  a  virgin  when  she  bore  him,  what  is 


144  MARK  e,  3. 

there  absurd  or  superstitious  in  assuming  as  a  part  of  the  divine  plan 
that  she  should  remain  a  virgin  till  her  death  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  be  no  real  incongruity  in  holding  that  the  mother  of  our  Lord 
was  afterwards  an  ordinary  wife  and  parent,  what  incongruity  would 
there  have  been  in  putting  this  extraordinary  honour  on  the  married 
state,  by  choosing  one  who  was  already  in  the  ordinarj'-  sense  a  wife 
and  mother  ?  The  question  is  not  why  it  did  not  please  God  thus  to 
order  it,  with  which  we  have  no  right  to  intermeddle,  but  why  the 
same  minds  which  regard  the  perpetual  virginity  of  ^Mary  as  a  super- 
stition, shrink  with  equal  superstition  from  the  bare  suggestion  that 
Christ  might  have  been  born  of  any  but  a  virgin.  The  same  feeling 
which  revolts  from  one  hypothesis  in  some  revolts  from  both  hypothe- 
ses in  others,  and  the  difference  between  them,  as  to  this  repugnance, 
is  reduced  to  that  of  one  and  two,  before  and  after,  or  at  most  to  that 
of  a  consistent  uniformity  and  arbitrary  variation.  After  all  it  is  not 
so  much  a  matter  of  reason  or  of  faith  as  of  taste  and  sensibility ;  but 
these  exert  a  potent  influence  on  all  interpretation,  and  the  same 
repugnance,  whether  rational  or  merely  sentimental, which  led  fathers 
and  reformers  to  deny  that  Christ  had  brothers  in  the  ordinary  sense, 
is  likely  to  produce  the  same  effect  on  multitudes  forever,  or  until  the 
question  has  received  some  new  and  unequivocal  solution.  The 
collateral  arguments  in  this  dispute  derived  from  Matt.  1,  25,  and  John 
7,  5,  belong  to  the  interpretation  of  those  gospels.  The  other  and  more 
recent  ground  of  opposition  to  the  strict  sense  of  hrotJier  in  the  case 
before  us  is  the  theory,  by  some  connected  with  it,  of  extraordinary 
honours  paid  to  one  of  these  uterine  brethren  as  such  though  not  one 
of  the  twelve  apostles,  i.  e.  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  whom  Paul 
groups  with  John  and  Peter  as  a  pillar  of  the  church,  and  even  names 
him  first  in  the  enumeration,  which  is  natural  enough  if  he  was  one  of 
the  apostles  and  the  one  who  specially  presided  in  the  church  at  Jeru- 
salem ;  but  if  (as  many  now  maintain)  he  was  one  of  the  Saviour's 
unbelieving  brethren  (John  7,  5),  converted  by  our  Lord's  appearance 
to  him  after  his  resurrection  (1  Cor.  15,  7),  and  then  placed  upon  a 
level  with  the  twelve  an  account  of  his  relationship  to  Christ,  the  apos- 
tolical prerogative  is  sensibly  impaired,  and  the  door  thrown  open  for  an 
endless  license  of  conjecture  as  to  the  men  who  were  apostles  although 
not  so  dignified  by  Ciirist  himself.  An  unwillingness  to  come  to  this 
conclusion  has  undoubtedl}'  confirmed  some  in  the  old  belief,  that  the 
brother  of  the  Lord,  of  whom  Paul  speaks,  was  James  the  Less  or  James 
the  son  of  Alpheus,  at  once  an  apostleand  a  relative  of  Christ,  whether 
he  were  such  as  a  nephew  of  the  Virgin  IMar}^  or  of  Joseph,  or  a  son  of 
Joseph  by  a  former  marriage.  The  additional  hypothesis,  that  James 
and  his  brothers  lived  with  Joseph  after  the  decease  of  their  own  father, 
is  not  a  necessary  consequence  of  what  has  been  already  said,  but 
merely  an  ingenious  explanation  of  the  fact  that  these  brothers  of  Christ 
appear  in  attendance  on  his  mother  as  members  of  her  household.  (See 
above,  on  3,  31,  and  compare  John  2,  12,  Acts  1, 14.)  In  favour  oi 
identifying  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  (Gal.  1,  19)  with  James 
the  son  of  Alpheus  (see  above,  on  3,  18),  is  the  singular  coincidence  of 


MARK  G,  3.  4.  5.  145 


names  between  the  lists  of  the  apostles  and  the  passag;e  now  before  us. 
In  all  we  find  a  James  and  a  Simon  near  together,  and  in  Luke's  two 
catalogues  a  Jude  or  Judas  (not  Iscariot),  making  three  names  com- 
mon to  the  list  of  the  apostles  and  of  Christ's  bi'others.  This  may  no 
doubt  be  fortuitous,  the  rather  as  the  names  were  co  nmun,  and  the 
fourth  liere  mentioned,  which  was  less  so,  does  not  appear  in  any  list 
of  the  apostles.  Still  on  most  minds  the  coincidence  will  have  some 
influence,  in  spite  of  the  objection  that  in  John  7,  5,  we  are  expressly- 
told  that  his  brethren  did  not  believe  on  him.  But  if  brethren  means 
his  near  relations,  suiely  some  of  them  might  be  apostles,  while  the 
rest  were  unbelievers,  even  granting,  what  ma  well  be  questioned,  that 
by  unbelief  in  John  7,  5,  we  are  to  understand  an  absolute  rejection  of 
his  claims  and  doctrines,  rather  than  a  weak  conti-acted  faith,  with 
which  he  seems  to  charge  his  mother  upon  one  occasion  (John  2,  4), 
and  the  twelve  on  man}".  (See  above,  on  4,  -40,  and  compare  Matt.  G. 
30.  8,  26.  14.  31.  IG,  8.)  His  sisters  is  of  course  to  be  interpreted 
according  to  his  brothers,  the  wide  and  narrow  senses  being  applicable 
equally  to  either  sex.  Here  with  us  (literally  at  us,  close  to  us),  i.  e. 
still  resident  at  Na/.areth,  which  probably  i-emained  the  permanent 
home  even  of  his  mother.  Offended  in  him,  i.  e.  made  to  stumble  or 
without  a  figure  led  into  sin  and  error  with  respect  to  him.  For  the 
origin  and  meaning  of  the  Greek  term  see  above,  on  4,  17. 

4.  But  Jesus  said  unto  tliem,  A  propliet  is  not  without 
hononr,  but  in  his  own  country,  and  among  his  ow^n  kiu, 
and  in  his  own  house. 

Instead  of  resenting  this  reception  as  a  personal  offence  and  in- 
sult, which  it  certainly  was,  our  Lord  treats  it  merely  as  a  single  in- 
stance of  a  general  and  familiar  fact,  that  God's  most  highly  honoured 
instruments  and  agents  are  not  only  liable  to  be  dishonoured  by  their 
fellow-men,  but  to  be  least  respected  on  the  part  of  those  who  know 
them  best,  and  who  would  seem  to  be  particuiaidy  bound  to  do  them 
honour.  The  implied  reason  is  that  strangers  judge  of  such  a  person 
only  b}'  his  public  acts  or  his  official  conduct,  while  his  friends  and 
neighbours,  even  the  most  friendh'-,  have  their  minds  so  occupied  with 
minor  matters,  that  the  greater  are  obscured  if  not  distorted  to  their 
view.  It  is  like  looking  at  some  noble  structure  from  a  distance  where 
itself  alone  is  visible,  and  near  at  hand,  where  the  adjoining  houses 
both  distract  the  e3^e  and  lower  the  main  object ;  so  that  he  who  sees 
the  most  in  one  sense  sees  the  least  in  another.  This  familiar  lesson 
of  experience,  and  as  such  reduced  to  a  proverbial  form,  is  here  applied 
especial l}'^  to  prophets,  either  because  it  had  been  actually  verified  in 
their  experience  more  than  that  of  others,  or  because  it  was  our  Lord's 
prophetic  ministry  and  office  which  had  been  so  contemptuously  treated 
by  his  countrymen. 

5.  And  he  could  there  do  nq  mighty  work,  save  that 

7 


146  MARK  6,  5.  G. 

he   laid   liis   hands   upoii   a  few   sick   folk,  and  healed 
(them.) 

The  sad  effect  of  this  reception  was  the  paucity  of  miracles  at  Naza- 
reth, compared  with  those  at  other  towns  of  Galilee,  particularly  at 
Capernaum(see  above,  on  1,  32.  3,  10.)  He  iras  not  able  there  to  do 
any  miracle  (literally,  no  poioer^  as  in  v.  2.)  This  cannot  literally  mean 
that  he  had  lost  the  power  of  working  miracles  in  consequence  of  their 
rejecting  him,  but  must  be  taken  either  in  a  moral  sense,  that  he  could 
not  do  so  in  consistency  with  the  design  and  purpose  of  his  mission, 
or  more  strictly  that  he  could  not  for  the  want  of  opportunity,  because 
the  people,  having  no  faith  in  his  healing  power,  or  disdaining  to  re- 
ceive the  favours  of  one  whom  they  knew  so  well  and  were  so  unwilling 
to  acknowledge  as  superior,  did  not  present  themselves  as  in  other 
places.  This  is  certainly  more  probable  and  pleasing  than  the  suppo- 
sition that  our  Lord,  in  this  case,  refused  what  he  seems  to  have 
granted  in  all  others. 

6.  And  he  marvelled  because  of  their  unbelief.    And 
he  went  round  about  the  villages  teaching. 

The  extraordinary  conduct  of  the  JSTazarenes  is  now  presented  in 
the  strongest  manner  possible  by  saying  that  our  Lord  himself  icon- 
dered  at  (or  on  account  of)  tlieir  unbelief.  To  reconcile  omniscience 
with  surprise  is  no  part  of  our  privilege  or  duty.  All  such  seeming 
contradictions  are  parts  of  the  great  mystery  of  godliness,  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh  (1  Tim.  3,  16),  the  union  of  humanity  and  deit}'-  in  one 
theanthropic  person.  However  incomprehensible  to  our  finite  facul- 
ties may  be  the  coexistence  in  one  person  of  the  divine  logos  and  a  hu- 
man soul,  the  possession  of  the  latter,  if  conceded,  carries  with  it  all 
the  attributes  and  acts  of  which  a  perfect  human  soul  is  capable. 
While  to  Christ's  divinity  or  eternal  spirit  there  could  be  nothing  new 
or  strange,  to  his  humanity  surprise  and  wonder  were  familiar,  and  on 
no  occasion  had  he  seen  more  to  call  forth  those  affections  of  mind, 
than  when  he  saw  the  unbelief  of  his  own  countrymen  at  Nazareth. 
But  far  from  suffering  their  strange  behaviour  to  divert  him  from  his 
purpose,  he  resumed  his  missionary  circuit  or  continued  it ;  for  he  had 
probabl}'  returned  to  Nazareth,  not  upon  any  special  errand,  but  be- 
cause it  came  next  in  his  systematic  scheme  of  labour.  There  is  a  sig- 
nificant simplicity  in  Mark's  combination  of  these  two  things,  more 
expressive  than  the  most  elaborate  description.  It  presents  to  us  the 
Saviour  pausing  for  a  moment  as  it  were  to  wonder  at  the  incredulity 
of  Nazareth,  then  calmly  passing  on  to  his  next  scene  of  labour.  He 
went  about^  literally  led  about  (1  Cor.  9,5),  a  compound  form  of  the 
verb  used  in  the  same  way  in  1,  38,  but  never  probably  (except  in  Acts 
13, 11)  without  some  reference  to  the  leading  of  others,  as  in  Christ's 
itinerant  surveys  of  Gahlee,.to  which  it  is  applied  not  only  here  but  in 
Matt.  7, 23.  9,  35.  The  tillages,  here  put  for  towns  in  general  (see 
above,  on  1,  38,  and  compare  Matt.  9,  35.)     In  a  circle,  or  a  circuit,  that 


MARK  6,  6.  7.  8.  147 

is,  not  merely  round  about  (as  in  3,  34  above),  but  on  a  regular  con- 
certed plan  of  periodical  revisitation.  These  occasional  glimpses  of  the 
method  upon  which  our  Lord  conducted  his  official  work  are  worthy 
of  particular  attention,  as  evincing  that  he  did  not  work  at  random  or 
leave  any  part  of  Galilee,  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  unvisited. 

7.  And  lie  called  (unto  liim)  the  twelve,  and  began  to 

send  them  forth  by  two  and  two,  and  gave  them  power 

over  unclean  spirits. 

Besides  continuing  his  own  itinerant  ministry,  our  Lord  now  takes 
another  step  of  great  importance,  by  actuallj^  sending  out  the  twelve 
whom  he  had  previously  chosen  for  the  twofold  purpose  of  being  with 
him  as  disciples  and  going  forth  from  him  as  apostles  (see  above,  on  3, 
14.)  It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  the  mission  here  recorded 
was  not  the  permanent  and  proper  apostolic  work,  for  which  they  were 
not  qualified  until  the  day  of  Pentecost  (see  below,  on  16,  20,  and  com- 
paie  Luke  24,  49.  Acts  1, 41),  but  a  temporary  and  preliminarj^  mis- 
sion, to  diffuse  still  more  extensively  the  news  of  the  iNIessiah's  advent 
and  the  doctrine  of  his  kingdom,  attested  by  the  same  credentials  which 
he  bore  himself  Began  what  he  had  not  yet  done,  but  only  prepared 
the  way  for.  Two  {and)  two,  in  pairs  or  couples,  for  mutual  counsel 
and  assistance,  in  accordance  with  the  maxim  of  Solomon  (Ecc.  4, 9.) 
This  interesting  circumstance  has  been  preserved  by  Mark  alone, 
perhaps  on  the  authority  of  Peter  (see  above,  on  5,  29).  but  at  all 
events  under  a  divine  direction.  Poicer,  i.  e.  derivative  or  delegated 
power,  authority,  conferred  by  a  superior,  not  to  be  employed  promis- 
cuously or  at  random,  but  so  as  to  promote  the  end  for  which  it  was 
bestowed.  Power  of  unclean  spirits^  i,  e,  relating  to  them,  and  by  ne- 
cessary implication,  over  them,  which  is  not  expressed  however  but 
suggested  by  the  context.  The  spirits^  the  unclean  (ones),  is  the  form 
of  the  original,  in  which  the  adjective  is  added  as  a  qualifying  term, 
because  the  noun  includes  all  spirits,  good  and  evil,  whereas  they  were 
to  have  power  only  over  fallen  angels.  Here,  as  elsewhere  (see  above, 
on  1,34.  3,  11),  Mark  gives  special  prominence  to  such  dispossessions 
as  the  most  extraordinary  miracles  of  healing,  and  as  such  representing 
all  the  rest  which  were  equally  included  in  this  apostolical  commission 
(Matt.  10, 1.  Luke  9,  2.) 

8.  And  commanded  them  that  they  should  take  nothing 
for  (their)  journey,  save  a  staiF  only ;  no  scrip,  no  bread, 
no  money  in  (their)  purse : 

To  this  general  account  of  their  commission  Mark  adds  a  special  charge 
in  reference  to  two  points,  their  equipment  for  the  journe}^  and  their 
conduct  towards  the  people  with  whom  they  came  in  contact.  Luke's 
account  is  still  more  brief  (9,  3-5),  while  Matthew  (10,  5-42)  seems  to 
put  together  all  the  similar  directions  given  to  the  twelve  at  any  time, 
in  reference  not  only  to  this  temporary  mission,  but  to  their  later  apos- 


148  MARK  6.  8.  9.  10. 

tolic  journeys.  Commanded  is  in  Greek  a  verb  originally  meaning  to 
announce  or  pass  the  word,  with  special  reference  to  military  watch- 
words, then  to  any  charge  or  order,  but  according  to  the  lexicons  not 
in  the  strongest  or  most  peremptory  sense,  which  is  otherwise  expressed. 
Take,  literally,  taJce  up,  but  with  special  reference  to  taking  away,  and 
then  to  carrying  (see  above,  on  2,  3.  9.  11.  12.  21.  4, 15.  28.)  For 
their  journey ,  literally,  into  the  road  (or  way.)  Save,  except,  literally, 
if  not.  A  staff,  or  walking-stick,  as  used  in  journeys  upon  foot  to 
support  and  ease  the  traveller.  No  scrip,  &c.,  literally,  not  a  scrip,  not 
hread,  not  ononey.  Scrip,  an  old  word  answering  to  bag,  sack,  or 
wallet.  Money,  literally,  hrass,  or  rather  copper,  said  to  be  the  first 
ore  that  was  wrought,  whence  the  name  is  sometimes  used  for  metal  in 
general,  and  sometimes  for  bronze,  or  the  alloy  of  copper  and  tin,  but  not 
for  what  is  now  called  brass,  or  the  alloy  of  copper  and  zinc,  which  is 
said  to  have  been  unknown  to  the  ancients.  Copper  having  been  early 
used  for  money,  the  M'ord  has  sometimes  that  generic  meaning,  as  it 
has  in  this  place,  with  specific  reference  no  doubt  to  coin  of  the  lowest 
value,  like  the  plural  {coppers)  among  us.  In  their  purse,  literally. 
into  the  girdle,  the  construction  implying  previous  insertion,  and  the 
whole  phrase  a  custom,  still  prevailing  in  the  east,  of  using  the  belt, 
which  keeps  the  flowing  dress  together,  as  a  purse  or  pocket.  Horace 
and  Livy  speak  of  money  in  the  girdle,  and  Plutarch  connects  the  very 
two  Greek  words  employed  by  Mark. 

9.  But  (be)  sliod  witli  sandals ;  and  not  put  on  two 

coats. 

But  (introducing  a  concession)  shod  (literally,  underhound,  bound 
under  with)  sandals,  soles  of  wood  or  skin  covering  the  bottom  of 
the  feet  and  fastened  with  leather  straps  or  thongs.  Not  put  on,  an 
unusual  variation  of  the  older  English  form,  p)Ut  not  on,  both  equiva- 
lent in  meaning  to  our  modern  phrase,  do  not  2^ut  on,  or  clothe  3'ourself 
with,  wear.  Coats,  tunics,  shirts,  the  inner  garment  of  the  ancient 
oriental  dress,  worn  next  the  skin  and  reaching  to  the  knees  (see  above, 
on  2,  21.  5,  27,  and  below,  on  14,  63.)  These  particulars,  intended  to 
convey  the  general  idea  that  they  were  to  go  without  encumbrance 
and  to  rely  for  their  subsistence  on  the  public  hospitality,  are  substan- 
tially the  same  in  all  the  evangelists,  except  that  Luke  includes  the 
sto^' among  the  things  prohibited.  As  this,  however,  is  neither  a  tech- 
nical description  nor  a  business  inventory,  but  a  proverbial  enumera- 
tion, all  unbiassed  readers  feel  that  the  very  same  original  expression 
might  be  rendered  not  even  a  staff,  or  at  most  a  staff]  the  stall  being 
as  it  were  the  boundary  between  what  was  forbidden  and  allowed, 
and  it  making  practically  no  odds  whether  it  were  left  or  taken. 

10.  And  he  said  unto  tliem,  In  wliat  place  soever  yc 
enter  into  a  liouse,  tliere  abide  till  ye  depart  from  that 
place. 


MARK  6,  10.  11.  149 

And  Tie  said  to  them  (further)  on  the  same  subject,  or  the  same  occa- 
sion, one  of  Mark's  favourite  transitions  (see  above,  on  4.  13.  21.  24.  20. 
30.)  What  is  here  said  is  explanatory  of  the  char^^e  immediately  preced- 
ing. They  had  no  need  of  luggage  or  provisions  because  they  would  b^ 
hospitably  entertained  at  every  stopping  place.  WJierever,  in  whatever 
town  or  neighbourhood,  ye  go  into  a  house  (or  dwelling),  i.  e.  as  invited 
guests,  there  (in  that  same  house)  remain  until  ye  go  out  thence,  i.  e. 
from  that  vicinity.  The  apparent  incongruity  of  telling  them  to  stay  till 
they  departed,  as  if  they  could  do  otherwise,  arises  wholly  from  the 
reference  of  the  local  particles,  wherever,  where,  and  thence,  to  different 
objects  not  distinguished  in  the  text,  but  pointed  out  in  the  foregoing 
paraphrase.  The  meaning  of  this  charge  is  that  although  they  would 
be  cheerfully  received  and  entertained  wherever  they  might  come  in 
Christ's  name,  the}^  must  give  no  unnecessarj^  trouble  and  attract  no 
unnecessary  notice,  by  removals  from  one  dwelling  to  another  in  the 
same  j)lace  (compare  Luke  10,  7.)  They  were  not  to  be  received  as 
visitors  but  messengers  or  heralds,  and  must  be  content  with  what 
was  absolutely  necessary. 

11.  And  wliosoever  shall  not  receive  yon,  nor  hear 
you,  when  ye  depart  thence,  shake  off  the  dust  under 
your  feet  for  a  testimony  against  them.  Yerily  I  say 
unto  you,  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  that  city. 

The  foregoing  directions  presupposed  that  they  would  everywhere 
be  well  received ;  but  they  are  now  prepared  to  meet  with  marked  ex- 
ceptions, not  in  families  or  houses  merely,  but  in  towns  and  whole 
communities  (Matt.  10,  14.  Luke  9,  5.)  This  we  know  was  the  ex- 
perience of  our  Lord  himself  (see  above,  on  5,  17,  and  compare  Luke 
9,  53),  and  he  instructs  the  twelve  how  to  act  in  aU  such  cases.  Who- 
soever (or  as  many  as)  shall  not  receive  you,  not  as  guests  merely  but 
as  teachers,  neither  hear  you,  speaking  in  my  name,  b}'-  my  authority, 
and  of  my  kingdom.  When  ye  depart,  or  more  exactly,  going  out 
thence,  i.  e.  immediately  when  thus  rejected.  Shalce  off,  the  expression 
used  by  Luke  (9,  5),  whereas  that  of  Mark  and  Matthew  (10,  14) 
strictl}'  means  to  shalce  out,  though  descriptive  of  the  same  act.  Dust 
is  also  the  expression  used  by  Luke  and  Matthew,  while  the  one  em- 
ployed by  Mark  means  strictly  earth  thrown  up  from  au}^  excavation, 
but  appears  to  have  acquired  in  the  later  Greek  the  sense  of  loose 
earth  or  flying  dust.  Under  your  feet,  a  supplementary  specification, 
not  expressed  as  such  in  English,  which  might  be  rendered  more 
exactlj',  the  dust  (namely)  that  l>eneath  your  feet,  meaning  that 
which  adheres  to  the  feet  in  walking.  For  a  testimony  to  them 
(as  in  1,  44)  or  as  Luke  more  precisely  phrases  it,  against  them 
(Luke  9,  5.)  The  act  enjoined  is  a  symbolical  one,  meaning  that 
they  would  not  even  let  the  dust  of  the  places  where  these  people  lived 
adhere  to  them,  much  less  consent  to  come  in  contact  with  them 


150  MARK  G,  11.  12.  13. 

selves,  in  other  words,  that  they  renounced  all  intercourse  with  them 
forever.  The  same  essential  meaning  was  expressed  by  the  kindred 
act  of  shaking  the  garments.  That  both  were  practised  bv  the 
apostles,  even  after  Christ's  ascension,  we  may  learn  from  Paul's  ex- 
ample at  Antioch  and  Corinth  (Acts  13,  51.  18,  G.)  The  ancient  Jews 
are  sold  to  have  adopted  the  same  method  on  returning  to  the  Holy 
Land  from  foreign  countries,  to  denote  that  they  desired  to  abjure  and 
leave  behind  all  that  cleaved  to  them  of  heathenism.  In  the  case 
before  us.  it  was  a  reciprocal  rejection  of  those  by  whom  they  were 
themselves  rejected.  The  last  clause  in  the  common  text  and  version 
is  not  found  here  in  the  oldest  copies,  and  is  regarded  by  the  latest 
critics  as  a  mere  assimilation  of  Mark's  text  to  Matthew's  (9,  15.)  The 
meaning  of  the  clause  is  that  the  guilt  of  those  who  thus  deliberately 
rejected  Christ  when  offered  to  them  was  incomparably  greater  than 
the  most  atrocious  sins  of  those  who  had  enjoyed  no  such  advantage. 
The  case  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (Gen.  18,  20.  19,  24.  25)  is  a  stand- 
ing type  in  Scripture,  both  of  aggravated  sin  and  fearful  retribution 
(Deut.  29,  23.  Isai.  13,  19.  Jer.  49,  18.  50,  40.  Amos  4,  11.)  The 
threatening  here  implied,  if  not  expressed,  has  reference  to  the  last 
appeal  which  Christ  was  now  about  to  make,  the  farewell  offer  of 
himself  and  his  salvation,  by  the  aid  of  the  apostles  to  the  whole  pop- 
ulation of  the  country,  or  at  least  of  Galilee,  before  the  da^'S  of  his 
assumption  should  be  filled  and  his  face  set  for  the  last  time  towards 
Jerusalem  (Luke  9.  51.) 

12.  And  they  went  out,  and  preaclied  that  men  shonld 

repent. 

To  this  account  of  the  commission  now  received  by  the  apostles 
Mark  adds  a  statement  of  its  execution.  Going  out^  from  the  Lord's 
presence  or  the  place  where  he  delivered  these  instructions,  they  pro- 
ceeded to  fulfil  them,  not  at  random  or  confusedly,  but  on  a  svste- 
matic  method  (see  above,  on  v.  6),  going  about  or  through  the  country 
and  among  the  villages  or  from  town  to  town  (Luke  9,  G.)  Preached^ 
announced,  proclaimed  it  as  a  privilege  and  duty  (see  above,  on  1,  4. 
3,  14),  that  they  (who  heard  the  proclamation)  sJiould  repent,  the  same 
message  which  had  been  already  brought  by  John  the  Baptist  (1,  4) 
and  by  Christ  himself  (1, 15.)  The  repentance  thus  preached  was  not 
simply  sorrow  or  compunction,  as  a  part  of  individual  experience,  but 
that  great  moral  revolution,  which  was  to  pieccde  as  well  as  follow 
the  INIessiah's  advent,  as  predicted  by  the  ancient  prophets  (see  above, 
on  1,  2.  3.) 

13.  And  they  cast  out  many  devils,  and  anomted  with 
oil  many  that  were  sick,  and  healed  (them). 

As  in  the  case  of  Christ  himself,  the  teaching  of  the  twelve  was 
authenticated  and  attested  by  miraculous  credentials.  Mark,  as  usual, 
makes  prominent  the  case  of  dispossession,  and  they  cast  oiU  many  de- 


MARK  6.  13.  14.  151 

mons  (see  above,  on  1,  34.  39.  3, 15.  22)  but  then  expressly  mentions 
other  miracles  of  healing,  with  a  specific  method  of  performing  them 
not  mentioned  in  the  other  gospels.  And  they  anointed  with  oil 
many  side  (literally,  strengthless,  weak,  infirm)  and  cured  (theni),  the 
verb  used  above  in  1,  34,  and  there  explained  (compare  3,  2.  1(J.  15.  6,  5.) 
This  particular  method  of  effecting  cures,  although  not  mentioned  in  our 
Lord's  farewell  instructions  (see  below,  on  16, 18),  seems  to  have  been 
practised  in  the  apostolic  church  long  after  (compare  James  5,  14),  not 
as  a  medical  appliance,  but  as  one  of  those  external  signs,  by  which 
the  object  and  the  performer  of  the  miracle  were  brought  into  a  visi- 
ble connection.  Thus  in  few  words,  but  with  great  distinctness,  Mark 
describes  the  execution,  by  the  twelve,  of  their  renewed  commission, 
or  rather  of  the  charge  with  which,  for  the  first  time,  they  were  actu- 
ally sent  out  as  apostles,  and  which  Luke  (9,  C)  sums  up  in  four  words, 
preaching  and  healing  everywhere. 

14.  And  king  Herod  heard  (of  liim),  for  liis  name  was 
spread  abroad,  and  lie  said,  That  John  the  Baptist  was 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  therefore  mighty  works  do  shew 
forth  themselves  in  him. 

Leaving  the  general  effect  of  this  new  agency  to  be  inferred  or  taken 
for  granted,  the  evangelist  describes  with  some  particularity  the  singu- 
lar impression  which  it  made  upon  a  public  character  of  high  rank  and 
some  historical  celebrity.  This  was  Herod  Antipas,  the  second  son  of 
Herod  the  Great  (^L1tt.  2, 1.  Luke  1,  5),  and  bearing  the  abbreviated 
name  of  his  grandfather,  Antipater  the  Edomite  or  Idumean  (see 
above,  on  3,  8j,  who  had  been  the  minister  or  confidential  counsellor 
of  Hyrcanus  II.,  the  last  of  the  Maccabees  or  Hasmonean  Kings,  under 
whom,  or  rather  through  whom,  Pompey  the  Great  obtained  posses- 
sion of  the  Holy  Land,  and  virtually  although  not  ostensibly  reduced  it 
to  a  Roman  provmce.  Antipater,  however,  still  continued  to  enjoy  the 
favour  of  the  conquerors,  and  his  son  Herod,  after  fleeing  from  the 
country  to  escape  a  sentence  of  the  Sanhedrim,  returned  in  triumph, 
having  been  acknowledged  by  the  Senate  and  crowned  in  the  Capitol  as 
king  of  the  Jews.  After  reigning  many  years  as  a  vassal  of  the  em- 
pire, he  bequeathed  his  kingdom  to  his  three  sons  Archelaus,  Antipas, 
and  Philip,  the  first  of  whom  was  soon  displaced  by  Roman  governors, 
while  both  the  others  reigned  much  longer,  as  tributary  sovereigns, 
but  without  the  royal  title,  for  which  Augustus  substituted  that  of 
tetrarch.  which  originally  signified  the  ruler  of  a  fourth  part,  or  one  of 
four  associated  rulers,  as  in  ancient  Galatia,  but  was  afterwards  applied 
in  a  generic  sense  to  any  ruler  and  especially  to  tributary  kings,  imme- 
diately dependent  on  the  Roman  emperor.  Hence  Antipas,  though 
usually  called  the  tetrarch  (Matt.  14, 1.  Luke  3, 1.  19.  9,  7.  Acts  13, 
1),  is  by  !Mark  repeatedly  described  as  Mng^  which,  though  it  seems  at 
first  sight  an  inaccuracy,  really  evinces  his  exact  acquaintance  with 
the  titular  rank  of  Herod,  both  in  common  parlance  and  in  the  actual 
arrangements  of  the  empire.     This  prince,  whose  dominions  comprised 


152  MARK  6,  14. 

Galilee,  Samaria,  and  Perea,  resided  usually  at  Tiberias,  a  place  from 
which  the  sea  of  Galilee  derived  one  of  its  names  (see  above,  on  1,  16), 
but  which  is  not  itself  named  in  the  New  Testament,  perhaps  because 
our  Saviour  did  not  visit  it,  in  order  to  avoid  precipitating  the  catas- 
trophe or  crisis  of  his  history,  by  being  brought  into  collision  with  the 
court  or  person  of  this  wicked  ruler.  But  although  they  had  not  met, 
Herod,  as  might  have  been  expected,  heard  (of  him),/br  his  name  had 
hecome  manifest  (or  famous)^  first  by  means  of  his  own  words  and 
deeds  incessantly  reported  far  and  wide  by  those  who  witnessed  them, 
although  this  process  was  in  some  degree  retarded  by  occasional  in- 
junctions not  to  make  him  known,  and  then  b}^  the  pleaching  and  the 
miracles  of  the  twelve  apostles  who  were  sent  forth  for  the  very  pur- 
pose. That  the  history  has  reference  to  this  last  mode  of  diffusion,  is 
not  only  natural  and  like!}''  in  itself  but  rendered  more  so  by  the  read- 
iness with  which  it  accounts  for  the  insertion  of  the  following  story 
just  at  this  point,  after  the  commissioning  and  going  forth  of  the  apos- 
tles. The  effect  produced  by  this  increasing  fame  of  Jesus  on  the  mind 
of  Herod,  although  strange,  is  not  incredible,  but  true  to  nature  and 
experience.  His  conclusion  was  that  this  was  John  the  Baptist  (lit- 
eral Iv,  the  one  haptizing)^  who  was  indeed  dead,  but  as  the  conscience- 
stricken  king  imagined,  had  been  raised  (aroused,  awakened,  see  above, 
on  1,  31.  5,  41)  from  the  dead  (from  among  them,  their  condition  and 
society),  not  from  death  as  an  abstraction  or  a  mere  condition  without 
reference  to  persons.  The  doctrine  of  a  resurrection,  although  veiled 
or  onlj^  partiall}--  disclo.sed  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  now  an  article 
of  faith  with  all  the  Jews  except  the  Sadducee.^;,  who  seem  to  have 
rejected  it  on  philosophical  rather  than  scriptural  grounds.  Even 
Herod,  who  seems  elsewhere  to  be  called  a  Sadducee  (see  below,  on  8, 
15),  was  either  less  incredulous  on  this  point,  or  was  scared  out  of  his 
unbelief  by  guilty  fear.  This  idea  was  the  more  strange  because  John 
performed  no  miracle  (John  10,  41),  and  therefore  miracles  could  be  no 
proof  of  his  resuscitation.  But  even  as  to  this  point  the  evangelist  sug- 
gests without  developing  an  explanation.  Therefore^  literally, /(??•  (or 
on  account  of)  this,  i.  e.  because  he  has  appeared  again,  with  some  new 
message  or  authority,  perhaps  to  punish  those  who  woidd  not  hear  him 
or  who  slew  him  when  he  came  before.  Such  an  imagination  was  not 
wholly  destitute  of  colour,  since  the  prophecy  of  Malachi  respecting 
John  suggests  the  idea  of  successive  advents,  which  might  well  be 
mi.sconceived  by  Herod  as  relating  to  distinct  appearances  of  oue  and  the 
same  person.  (See  a,bove,  on  1,  2,  o.)  The  expressions  of  the  last 
clause  are  particularly  strong  in  the  original.  For  this  (cause)  energize 
the  jjowers  in  him,  i.  e.  miraculous  or  superhuman  powers,  not  only 
show  forth  themselves  (which  conveys  too  little  and  is  neither  the  exact 
idea  nor  the  form  of  the  original)  but  are  husf/,  active,  eneractic,  which 
last  is  a  word  of  kindred  origin  with  that  here  used.  The  English 
version  gives  to  poicers  the  secondary  meaning  which  it  sometimes  has 
of  miracles,  or  mighty  woiks,  as  the  effects  and  proofs  of  superhuman 
power  (see  above,  on  v.  5,  and  below,  on  9,  39)  ;  but  the  piimary  mean- 
ing is  entitled  to  the  preference  as  such  and  on  account  of  its  conjunc- 


MARK  G,  14.  15.  IG.  153 

tion  with  a  yerb  requiring  it,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  change  which 
the  translators  have  bem  forced  to  make  in  it.  in  oider  to  retain  their 
customary  version  of  the  noun,  since  a  miracle  cannot  be  said  to  act  or 
to  be  active,  which  can  be  asserted  only  of  the  power  that  produces  it. 
All  that  need  be  added  as  to  this  point  is  that,  out  of  twent}'  places 
where  the  same  Greek  verb  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  this  is  the  only 
one  in  which  it  is  not  strictly  rendered  as  expressive  of  efficient  action. 
Thus  explained  the  phrase  before  us  is  still  more  significant  of  Herod'S 
guilty  fears,  occasioned  by  the  very  rumour  of  our  Saviour's  miracles, 
the  source  or  ground  of  which  fears  is  explained  in  the  ensuing  context. 

15.  Others  said,  That  it  is  Ellas.     And  others  said, 
That  it  is  a  prophet,  or  as  one  of  the  prophets. 

But  before  proceeding  to  this  explanation,  Mark  informs  us  that 
these  speculations  as  to  our  Lord's  identity  were  not  confined  to  Herod, 
but  were  made  the  subject  of  solicitous  discussion  at  his  court  and  else- 
where. Others  said.,  -not  on  any  one  occasion,  but  as  the  imperfect 
tense  denotes,  were  saying  or  were  wont  to  say.  It  seems  to  refer 
therefore  not  to  discourses  held  in  Herod's  presence  or  addiessed  di- 
rectly to  him.  but  to  the  common  talk  or  popular  discussions  of  the  day. 
^Vhile  Herod  entertained  this  strange  idea,  it  was  very  generally 
thought  and  said  by  others,  that  (see  above,  on  1,  15.  37.  40)  it  is  JSlias, 
the  Greek  form  of  Elijah^  who  was  really  foretold  as  the  forerunner  of 
Messiah  (Mai.  4.  5),  and  who  in  a  certain  sense  did  reappear  in  John 
the  Baptist.  (See  above,  on  1,  2.  3,  and  below,  on  9. 11-13.)  This 
was  therefore  a  correct  interpretation,  but  too  definite  fur  some,  who 
were  contented  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  a 'prophet .,  not  in  any  modern 
or  attenuated  sense,  but  as  one  of  the  prophets  properly  so  called  and 
perfectly  familiar  as  a  well-defined  class  of  persons  in  the  sacred  history. 
This  qualification  was  the  more  important,  as  the  gift  of  prophecy  had 
been  suspended  for  four  centuries,  and  therefore  to  assert  that  a 
jirophet  of  the  old  school  had  arisen  was  to  say  that  a  new  dispensation 
had  begun  or  was  approaching.  We  have  thus  condensed  in  this  verse, 
not  mere  incoherent  gossip,  but  the  principal  opinions  entertained  among 
the  Jews  as  to  the  person  of  the  Saviour. 

16.  But  when  Herod  heard   (thereof),  he  said.  It  is 
John,  whom  I  beheaded  :  he  is  risen  from  the  dead. 

But  Herod  hearing.,  either  these  expressions  pf  opinion,  or  the  ru- 
mours which  occasioned  them,  more  probably  the  latter,  as  the  verse 
preceding  relates  not  to  what  passed  in  his  presence,  but  to  what  was 
passing  all  through  his  dominions.  The  meaning  then  is,  not  that  in 
reply  to  these  suggestions  Herod  said  what  is  recorded  in  this  verse,  but 
that  among  the  various  opinions  then  afioat  in  the  communit}',  whether 
known  to  him  or  not,  this  was  his.  While  others  were  proposing  this 
or  that  solution  of  the  wonderful  phenomena  in  question,  Herod  had  a 
theory  or  explanation  of  his  own  distinct  from  all  the  rest,  and  sug- 
7* 


154  MARK  6,  16.  17. 

gested  by  his  own  guilty  memory  and  conscience.  This  view  of  the 
matter  not  only  agrees  better  with  the  terms  of  the  narrative  expounded 
strictly,  but  enables  us  to  understand  the  king  as  saying  these  things 
to  himself  or  to  his  confidential  servants  (Matt.  14,2),  which  is  cer- 
tainly more  natural  than  to  suppose  a  public  agitation  of  the  question 
in  the  court  or  palace,  and  a  public  avowal  of  his  fear  that  this  would 
prove  to  be  the  very  man  whom  he  had  put  to  death.  There  is  peculiar 
force  in  the  original  arrangement  of  the  sentence,  only  partially  retained 
in  the  ti'anslation.  {JIc)  whom  I  beheaded — John — this  is — 7ie  (even 
he)  has  arisen  (or  hee?i  raised^  from  (jamong)  the  dead. 

17.  For  Herod  liimself  had  sent  forth  and  laid  hold 

upon  John,  and  bound  him  in  prison  for  Herodias'  sake, 

his  brother  Philip's  wife  :  for  he  had  married  her. 

One  of  the  characteristics  of  a  well-ordered  history,  as  distinguished 
from  mere  chronicles  or  annals,  is  the  way  in  which  the  writer  inter- 
weaves his  materials  instead  of  simply  throwing  them  together,  going 
back  to  take  up  what  has  been  allowed  to  drop,  and  introducing  topics, 
even  out  of  their  precise  chronological  arrangement,  when  required  to 
complete  or  to  illustrate  the  main  narrative.  The  best  historians  in 
every  language  are  remarkable  for  this  constructive  skill,  which  is  rather 
natural  than  artificial,  and  is  therefore  often  greatest  where  it  shows  the 
least.  Some  of  the  best  samples  of  this  qualit}'-  are  furnished  by  the 
sacred  writers,  whose  simplicity  is  not,  as  some  imagine,  the  eifect  of 
ignorance  and  inexperience,  but  of  perfect  skill ;  their  artlessness  is  not 
opposed  to  art  but  to  artifice,  and  often  where  the  condescending  critic 
pities  the  deficiency  of  purpose  and  coherent  plan,  it  is  the  perfectness 
of  both  which  has  deceived  him.  Man^^  instances  of  this  kind  are  af- 
forded by  the  gospels,  one  of  which  is  now  before  us,  in  the  different 
but  equall}-^  artistic  mode  in  which  the  writers  introduce  the  narrative 
of  John's  imprisonment.  Matthew  and  Mark  defer  it  till  they  come  to 
speak  of  Herod's  terror  when  he  heard  of  Jesus,  where  they  are  natu- 
rally led  to  give  the  causes  of  that  strange  impression  by  relating  the 
whole  story  in  connection.  Luke  relates  the  perplexity  of  Herod  in  the 
same  way,  but  had  no  occasion  to  recount  his  previous  treatment  of  the 
Baptist,  having  recorded  it  alread}^  in  his  narrative  of  John's  appear- 
ance and  official  ministry.  Now  as  both  these  methods  are  entirely 
natural  and  in  accordance  with  the  theory  and  practice  of  the  best  his- 
toi'iuns,  and  while  the  difference  may  serve  to  show  the  independence 
of  the  writers  who  exhibit  it.  the  charsre  of  incoherence  asxainst  either 
is  as  groundless  as  against  the  best  digested  portions  of  Polybius  or 
Gibbon.  The  for  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  refers  to  the  phrase 
whom  I  heheaded  in  the  one  preceding.  To  one  unacquainted  with  the 
previous  fiicts  this  expression  would  need  explanation,  and  Mark  now 
proceeds  to  give  it.  Sending  out  (or  aicai/),  the  verb  from  which 
ajyostle  is  derived  (.see  above,  on  1,  2.  3, 14.  6.  7),  but  here  applied  to 
the  commission  of  a  soldier  or  an  officer  of  justice  (see  below,  on  v.  27.) 
Seized,  arrested,  the  verb  explained  above  (on  1,31.  3,21.  5,41)  as 


MARK  6,  17.  18.  10.  155 

denoting  either  violent  or  friendly  seizure.  Bounds  either  in  the  strict 
sense  oi fastened^  chained,  or  in  the  wide  one  of  confined^  imprisoned, 
which  the  Greek  sometimes  seems  to  have.  In.  jjrison^  literally  guard 
or  ward,  which  may  either  mean  the  place  or  the  condition  of  confine- 
ment. Fo7'  (on  account  of)  Herodias,  the  daughter  of  Aristobulus,  son 
of  Herod  the  Great,  was  married  by  her  grandfather  to  his  son  Philip, 
not  the  tetrarch  mentioned  in  Luke  3, 1,  but  another  who  appears  to 
have  occupied  no  public  station.  Leaving  him  she  married,  in  direct 
violation  of  the  law,  her  uncle  and  brother-in-law  Herod  Antipas,  who 
had  divorced  his  own  wife  the  daughter  of  Ai-etas  an  Arabian  king,  sup- 
posed to  be  the  same  of  whom  Paul  speaks  in  one  of  his  epistles  (2  Cor. 
11,32.)  This  divorce  involved  him  in  a  war  from  which  he  could  be 
extricated  only  by  the  Roman  arms.  Enough  has  now  been  said  to 
show  the  character  not  only  of  Herodias  and  of  Antipas  but  also  of  the 
whole  Herodian  race,  whose  history  is  stained  with  many  odious  impu- 
tations of  adultery  and  even  incest  under  the  pretence  of  marriage. 

18.  For  John  had  said  unto  Herod,  It  is  not  lawful  for 
thee  to  have  tliy  brother's  wife. 

It  is  not  without  reason  that  INLirk  speaks  of  John  as  being  thrown 
into  prison  because  Herod  married  Herodias ;  for  John  said  to  Herod^ 
it  is  not  lawful  (^ov  'permitted)  either  by  the  law  of  nature  or  the  law 
of  Moses,  to  have  (or  hold  in  thy  possession)  the  icife  of  thy  (own) 
irother.  There  is  something  very  pleasing  in  this  incidental  glimpse 
of  John's  consistency  and  faithfulness  in  reproving  sin  without  respect 
of  persons,  to  which  Christ  himself  seems  to  refer  when  he  describes 
John  as  neither  a  reed  shaken  by  the  wind  nor  a  courtier  in  soft  rai- 
ment (Matt.  11,  7.  8.  Luke  7,  24.  25.)  This  description  is  emphatically 
verified  by  John's  appearance  in  the  scene  before  us,  where  the  austere 
preacher  of  the  wilderness,  who  so  severely  scourged  both  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees,  though  enemit^s  and  rivals,  as  alike  belonging  to  the 
seed  of  the  serpent  (Gen.  3,  15)  or  generation  of  vipers  (Matt.  3, 7), 
appears  reproving  Herod  on  his  throne  for  his  incestuous  connection 
with  his  brother's  wife  and  all  his  other  sins,  of  which  this  was  the 
most  flagrant  and  notorious,  until  he  crowned  all  by  his  treatment  of 
John  himself  (Luke  3, 1&.  20.) 

19.  Therefore  Herodias  had  a  rjuarrel  against  him,  and 
would  have  killed  him  ;  but  she  could  not. 

This  boldness  and  fidelity  of  course  provoked  the  enmity  of  her  who 
had  occasioned  it.  Had  a  quarrel  implies  open  strife,  whereas  the 
true  sense  is  that  given  in  the  margin  of  our  Bible,  ?iad  an  inward 
grudge.  The  original  expression  is  as  idiomatic  as  the  English  and 
not  easily  translated.  The  Greek  verb  strictly  means  had  in^  i.  e.  had 
within  her ;  the  object  is  to  be  supplied  from  the  context  or  from 
usage.  Now  Herodotus  twice  uses  the  same  verb  with  a  noun  origi- 
nally meaning  hile^  then  wrath  or  bitter  anger,  and  the  modern  phiLo- 


156  MARK  6,  19.  20. 

logical  interpreters  agree  with  the  old  Greek  lexicographers  in  mak- 
ing Mark's  phrase  an  elliptical  contraction  of  the  one  just  given. 
Herodias  had  in  (her,  i.  e.  cherished,  harboured,  secret  anger,  spite) 
against  liim.  Would  have  is  not  a  mere  auxiliary  verb  or  compound 
tense,  but  a  distinct  proposition,  wished  to  Mil  Mm  (see  above,  on  1, 
40.)  The  same  is  true  of  the  next  clause,  and  she  wasnot  «6?e,forthe 
reason  given  in  the  next  verse. 

20.  For  Herod  feared  John,  knowing  that  he  was  a 

just  man  and  a  holy,  and  observed  him ;  and  when  he 

heard  liim,  he  did  many  things,  and  heard  him  gladly. 

We  have  here  disclosed  to  us  the  interesting  fact,  that  John  the 
Baptist  made  a  powerful  impression  upon  Herod  when  brought  into 
contact  with  him.  This  statement  must  at  least  include  the  time  of 
John's  imprisonment,  for  if  it  had  reference  exclusively  to  an  earlier 
time,  a  different  tense  would  have  been  used.  Most  probably  the 
meaning  is,  that  the  impression  previousl}'  made  on  Herod  was  con- 
firmed b}'  nearer  intercourse  or  closer  observation.  The  firs«t  effect 
described  is  that  of  yt'«r,  not  terror  or  alarm,  but  awe  and  reverence 
produced  by  his  knowledge  of  John's  character.  Just  and  holy  may 
be  here  combined  as  a  strong  expression  of  moral  excellence  without 
exact  and  nice  discrimination  ;  or  the  first  may  be  intended  to  describe 
his  rectitude  towards  man,  and  the  second  his  piety  towards  God  ;  or 
the  first  his  moral  character  in  general,  and  the  second  his  official 
character,  as  one  peculiarly  consecrated  to  the  divine  service  (see 
above,  on  1,  24.)  The  sense  will  then  be  that  Herod  recognized  John's 
personal  excellence  and  also  his  divine  legation.  Ohserred  him,  either 
in  the  sense  of  watching  his  movements,  or  in  that  of  keeping  and 
obeying  his  instructions,  both  which  are  certain  meanings  of  the  un- 
compounded  Greek  verb  (see  below,  on  7,  9,  and  compare  Matt.  23,  3. 
27,  36),  and  either  would  agree  well  with  what  follows  here.  But  as 
the  compound  form  is  not  so  used  in  the  New  Testament,  but  only  in 
the  sense  of  keeping  or  preserving  (Matt.  9,  17.  Luke  2,  19.  5, 38), 
some  of  the  best  interpreters  prefer  the  marginal  translation,  I'ej/t  (or 
saved)  him,  i.  e.  for  a  time  from  the  malice  of  Herodias.  Nor  was  this 
all,  but  having  heard  him,  he  did  many  {things),  of  those  whicli  John 
required  or  recommended.  A  less  natural  construction,  but  amounting 
to  the  same  thing,  is  that  having  heard  (^from)  him  many  (things),  he 
did  (them.)  Nor  was  it  merely  from  a  slavish  dread  or  stress  of  con- 
science that  he  acted  thus,  but  from  a  real  approbation  and  compla- 
cency in  John's  instructions,  and  he  gladly  heard  him,  literally,  sweetly, 
i.  e.  with  relish,  as  applied  by  Xenophon  to  the  enjoyment  of  pleasant 
food,  and  here  translerred,  almost  without  a  figure,  to  the  analogous 
effect  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  aliment.  Tliese  promising  appear- 
ances, however,  were  but  temporary.  Herod,  whose  character  was 
weak  as  well  as  wicked,  soon  yielded  to  the  constant  influence  of  Hero- 
dias, and  at  length  dcsii-ed  himself  to  kill  John,  but  was  deterred  by  his 
immense  popularity  and  credit  as  a  prophet  (Matt.  14, 5.)  These  accounts 


MARK  6,  20.  21.  157 

are  perfectly  consistent  with  each  other  and  with  the  statement  of  Jo- 
sephus,  that  Herod  was  afraid  of  some  political  excitement  as  the  fruit 
of  John  the  Baptist's  preaching.  Such  men,  in  such  emergencies,  are 
usually  actuated,  not  by  simple  but  by  complex  motives,  and  the  choice 
made  by  the  different  historians  is  just  what  might  have  been  expected 
from  their  several  views  and  purposes  in  writing.  Here  again  the 
German  notion  of  a  contradiction  between  Mark  and  Matthew  is  en- 
tirely at  variance  with  our  principles  and  practice  as  to  evidence  in 
courts  of  justice. 

21.  And  when  a  convenient  day  was  come,  that  Herod 

on  his  birth-day  made  a  supper  to  his  lords,  liigh  captains, 

and  chief  (estates)  of  Galilee. 

A  seasonable  (opportune,  convenient)  day  being  (come^  or  come  to 
pass,  as  in  v.  2  above),  not  for  Herod's  feast,  which  was  determined 
by  his  birth-day,  but  for  the  purpose  of  Herodias.  The  sense  is  not 
that  he  waited  for  a  suitable  time  to  celebrate  his  birth-day,  but  that 
she  waited  for  his  birth-day  as  a  good  time  to  accomplish  her  malignant 
purpose.  This  is  clear  not  only  from  the  general  connection,  but  from 
the  particular  construction,  which  is  not  that  when  a  convenient  day 
was  come,  Herod  made  a  feast,  &c.,  but  that  a  convenient  day  being 
come  (to  wit)  when  (ore  not  ort)  Herod  made  a  feast,  &c.,  then  hap- 
pened what  is  here  recorded.  Birtli-day  is  in  Greek  a  word  used  by 
the  older  writers  to  denote  a  day  kept  in  memory  of  the  dead,  but  in 
the  later  classics  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  confounded 
with  a  kindred  form  (yevedXia)  which  means  a  birth-day.  or  rather  its 
festivities,  and  therefore  written  in  the  plural.  Herod  made  a  supper^ 
or  a  feast,  the  Greek  word  being  used  to  signify  the  chief  meal  of  the 
day,  which  among  the  more  luxurious  classes  in  ancient  as  in  later 
times,  was  commonly  the  last  or  evening-meal,  and  therefore  correspond- 
ed to  the  modern  fashionable  dinner.  To  (or  foj',  i.e.  in  honour  of)  his 
lords,  a  later  Greek  derivative  of  great,  corresponding  to  the  Latin 
magnates  and  the  Spanish  grandes  (or  grandees.)  High  captains, 
chiliarchs,  commanders  of  a  thousand  men,  used  by  the  later  Greek 
historians  to  describe  the  Roman  tribunes,  of  whom  six  were  attached 
to  every  complete  legion,  each  commanding  ten  centuries,  at  least  upon 
the  field  of  battle.  In  the  New  Testnment  we  find  it  applied,  in  the 
singular  number,  to  the  commander  of  the  Roman  garrison  at  Jerusa- 
lem (Acts  21,  31.  22,24.  23,  10.  24,  7),  and  also  transferred  to  the 
Jewish  captain  of  the  temple-guard  (John  18, 12).  and  in  the  plural  to 
the  officers  of  rank  at  Cesarea  (Acts  25,  23),  which  may  also  be  the 
meaning  here,  as  tlie  reference  is  to  officers  in  Herod's  service,  although 
these  may  have  been  Romans,  as  the  tetrarch  was  only  a  titular  or 
tributary  sovereign,  being  really  a  vassal  of  the  empire  (see  above,  on 
V.  14.)  Chief  estates,  not,  as  the  words  might  seem  to  mean  in  modern 
English,  largest  fortunes,  but  highest  ranks,  or  rather  men  of  highest 
rank,  the  original  expression  being  one  word  and  denoting  simply 
Urst^  but  often  absolutely  used  to  mean  the  Jirst  (men),  chiefsj  of  a 


158  MARK  6,  21.  22.  23.  2-4. 

community.  (Seo  below,  on  9,  34.  10,  31.  44,  and  compare  Luke  19, 47. 
Acts  13,  50.  17,  4.  25,  2.  28,  7.  17.)  It  may  here  have  a  generic  sense 
including  both  the  terms  preceding  and  descriptive  of  the  civil  and 
militarj^  chiefs  respectively ;  or  the  residuary  sense  of  other  leading 
men,  not  so  included.  The  essential  meaning  of  the  whole  is  that  this 
festival  convened  all  the  most  distinguished  men  of  Gahlee,  the  most 
important  part  of  Herod's  tetrarchy.  (See  above,  on  1,  9.  14.  28. 
39.  3,7.) 

22.  23.  And  when  the  danghter  of  the  said  Herodias 
came  in,  and  danced,  and  pleased  Herod  and  them  that 
sat  with  him,  the  king  said  nnto  the  damsel,  Ask  of  me 
whatsoever  thou  wilt,  and  I  will  give  (it)  thee.  And  he 
sware  nnto  her,  Whatsoever  thon  shalt  ask  of  me,  I  will 
give  (it)  thee,  nnto  the  half  of  my  kingdom. 

And  the  daiigliter  of  Herodias  herself  (or  of  this  same  Herodias), 
whose  name,  according  to  Josephus,  was  Salome^  coming  in  (to  the 
company  before  described)  and  having  danced^  not  with  others  but 
alone,  the  dancing  here  intended  not  so  much  resembling  the  favourite 
amusement  of  the  social  circle  as  the  professional  exhibition  of  the 
theatre,  and  therefore  never  practised  in  the  east  or  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  by  women  of  respectable  condition,  so  that  this  display 
was  really  a  sacrifice  of  dignity  and  decency,  intended  to  prevail  upon 
the  king  by  the  seductions  of  an  art,  which  he  probably  admired  and 
in  which  Salome  may  have  had  extraordinary  grace  and  skill.  And 
having  pleased  Herod  and  those  reclining  with  him  (at  the  table,  see 
above,  on  2,  15.)  All  this  is  in  the  form  of  a  preamble  or  preliminary 
statement  of  the  circumstances  in  which  the  event  about  to  be  recorded 
took  place.  The  extravagance  of  Herod's  admiration  was  evinced  by 
his  inconsiderate  and  lavish  offer  to  the  girl  (or  damsel),  the  word  used 
above  in  5,  42,  and  there  explained.  Ash  me  (for  thyself  as  the 
middle  voice  in  Greek  denotes)  whatsoever  thou  wilt  (or  choosest, 
wishcst,  as  in  v.  19)  arid  I  will  give  (it)  to  thee.  Not  content  with 
this  rash  promise,  lie  confirmed  it  by  an  oath,  at  the  same  time  ren- 
dering it  more  specific  and  profuse  while  he  seemed  to  be  restricting 
it.  For  although  in  its  first  form  it  was  unrestricted,  yet  as  she  would 
not  have  dreamed  of  asking  half  his  kingdom  unless  he  suggested  it, 
the  limitation  is  in  fact  a  more  absurd  exaggeration. 


"GO^ 


24.  And  she  went  forth,  and   said  nnto  her  mother, 

\Vhat  shall  I  ask  ?     And  she  said,  The  head  of  John  the 

Baptist. 

And  (or  but)  she  going  out  (from  the  banquet-hall  to  the  apart- 
ments of  the  women  which  were  separate  from  those  of  the  men)  said 
to  her  mother^  What  shall  I  ash?  This  seems  to  imply  that  there  had 
been  no  previous  understanding  or  agreement  between  them,  but  that 


MARK  C,  24.  25.  26.  159 

the  mother  had  employed  the  daughter's  dancing  to  excite  the  liberality 
of  Herod,  whose  inlirmitics  she  well  knew,  with  the  purpose  of  after- 
wards giving  it  the  direction  which  she  most  desired  and  he  least 
expected.  The  prompt  laconic  answer  shows  not  only  a  predetermined 
plan,  but  a  vindictive  temper  and  an  iron  will.  Her  sanguinary  pur- 
pose was  expressed  still  more  distinctly  by  requesting  not  the  death  of 
John  the  Baptist  as  a  favour,  but  his  head  as  a  material  gift. 

25.  And  she  came  in  straightway  with  haste  unto  the 
king,  and  asked,  saying,  I  will  that  thou  give  me  by  and 
by  in  a  charger  the  head  of  John  the  Baptist. 

And  coming  in  immediately^  icith  haste^  not  only  making  no  resist- 
ance and  displaying  no  repugnance  to  her  mother's  horrid  proposition, 
but  assenting  to  it  with  alacrity  as  something  pleasing  to  herself,  a 
sufficient  indication  that  the  daughter,  like  the  mother,  was  a  genuine 
Herod  in  her  tastes  and  disposition.  There  is  also  something  singiilarly 
peremptory  in  her  answer  to  the  king,  as  if  she  were  afraid  that  on 
reflection  he  would  break  his  word.  I  icill  (i,  e.  I  wish,  I  choose)  that 
thou  give  me  forthwith  (on  the  spot,  without  delay),  an  old  English 
meaning  of  the  phrase  hy  and  l)y,  which  now  invariably  suggests  an 
interval,  though  not  a  long  one.  In  a  charger^  an  old  English  word 
for  a  large  dish,  so  called  according  to  the  etymologists  from  the  load 
that  it  sustained.  The  Greek  word  originally  means  a  board  ;  then, 
among  other  special  applications  of  the  term,  a  wooden  trencher;  and 
then  any  dish,  without  regard  to  the  material.  As  ]\Iark  does  not 
record  this  as  a  part  of  the  suggestion  of  Herodias,  it  was  probably 
added  by  the  daughter  of  her  own  accord,  as  a  hideous  jest  implying 
an  intention  to  devour  it. 

26.  And  the  king  was  exceeding  sorry  ;  (yet)  for  his 
oath's  sake,  and  for  their  sakes  which  sat  with  him,  he 
Avould  not  reject  her. 

Becoming  (by  a  sudden  change  of  feeling  not  expressed  in  the  trans- 
lation) exceeding  sorry,  very  sad,  in  Greek  a  single  but  compounded 
word  originally  mQ^mng  grieved  all  round,  i.  e.  surrounded  hy,  involved 
in  grief.  This  abrupt  return  of  Herod  to  his  senses  is  almost  as  clear 
a  sign  of  intellectual  and  moral  weakness  as  his  foolish  promise  and  his 
wicked  oath.  It  also  shows  the  motive  of  the  eager  promptitude  with 
which  his  offer  was  embraced  and  acted  on.  This  single  scene  affords 
a  glimpse  into  the  private  life  and  character  of  this  abandoned  couple 
fearfully  in  keeping  with  the  history  of  their  family  as  given  by  Jose- 
phus,  though  a  flattering  and  interested  writer.  But  Herod's  sorrow, 
although  probably  sincere,  was  not  sufficient  to  undo  the  mischief  which 
his  levity  had  done.  For  this  two  reasons  seem  to  be  assigned,  his 
conscience  and  his  honour,  a  mi>staken  sense  of  duty  and  a  feeling  of  false 
shame  in  reference  to  those  around  him.     For  (because  of,  on  account 


160  MARK  6,  26.  27. 

of)  the  oaths,  which  may  be  taken  either  as  a  generic  plural,  equivalent 
in  meaning  to  the  singular,  or  as  an  inexact  description  of  the  promise 
and  the  oath  (distinctly  mentioned  in  v.  23)  by  a  name  strictly  appli- 
cable only  to  the  latter ;  or  as  referring  to  an  eager  repetition  of  his 
oath,  not  unlikely  to  have  happened  although  not  recorded.  And  those 
recUning  icith  him  (at  his  table,  as  his  guests),  before  whom  he  had 
made  the  promise,  and  who  may  have  affected  to  applaud  its  generosity 
and  gallantry,  and  therefore  might  be  probably  expected  to  despise  his 
fickleness  and  meanness  if  he  broke  it.  The  simplest  construction  is  to 
take  these  as  two  distinct  motives,  a  sincere  belief  that  he  was  bound 
to  keep  his  oath,  and  a  morbid  cowardly  regard  to  the  opinion  of  his 
company.  It  may  be,  however,  that  the  two  are  to  be  more  completely 
blended,  and  the  one  allowed  to  qualify  the  other,  when  the  sense  will 
be,  that  he  considered  his  oath  binding  because  publicly  uttered,  and 
that  if  it  had  been  sworn  in  private  he  would  not  have  scrupled  to 
retract  or  break  it.  In  either  case  the  oath  was  an  unlawful  one  on 
two  accounts,  because  it  was  gratuitous  and  therefore  taking  the  Lord's 
name  in  vain  (Ex.  20,  7.  Matt.  5,  34'),  and  because  it  was  dangerous 
granting  in  advance  what  he  might  have  no  right  to  give,  as  the  event 
proved  to  his  sorrow  and  his  cost.  Although  he  could  not  therefore 
have  broken  his  promise  without  guilt,  he  could  not  keep  it  witliout 
greater  guilt,  a  choice  of  evils  in  which  no  man  has  a  right  to  implicate 
himself  by  rash  engagements.  Deterred  b}^  this  twofold  or  complex 
motive,  he  icould  not  (i.  e.  did  not  choose,  was  not  willing  to)  reject 
her^  an  emphatic  and  significant  Greek  verb,  originally  meaning  to  dis- 
place, put  awa}"-,  or  set  aside,  and  then  to  reject  with  scorn,  as  applied 
to  things  and  persons  (see  below,  on  7,  9),  both  which  are  here  in- 
cluded, as  he  could  not  nullify  his  -promise  without  treating  her  who 
now  claimed  its  performance  with  contempt. 

2T.  And   immediately  the  king  sent  an  executioner, 

and  commanded  liis  head  to  be  brought :  and  lie  went 

and  beheaded  him  in  the  prison  ; 

And  immediately^  as  if  to  give  himself  no  time  for  further  thought, 
the  Icing  sending  out  (or  off,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above  in  refer- 
ence to  John's  arrest,  v.  17.)  An  executioner^  or,  as  the  margin  reads, 
one  of  his  guard.  As  in  5,  23,  some  suppose  that  Mark  employs  a 
Latin  construction,  so  here  all  agree  that  he  employs  a  Latin  word 
(sj)ecidato?')  but  with  a  Greek  inflection.  As  it  is  not  used,  however, 
b}'  the  Roman  historians  in  any  military  sense  but  that  of  scout  or  spy, 
some  of  the  older  writers  supposed  it  to  be  incorrectly  written  for 
spiculator,  i.  e.  one  armed  with  a  spicula  or  dart ;  but  the  latest  inter- 
preters explain  it  in  its  etymological  sense  of  one  who  looks,  beholds 
or  watches,  hence  a  guard,  a  body-guard,  or  life-guard,  here  employed 
as  an  executioner,  which  duty  is  connected  with  the  name  by  Seneca. 
Thus  both  the  textual  and  marginal  translations  in  our  Bible  are  sanc- 
tioned by  the  highest  philological  authorities.  Commanded,  not  the 
verb  so  rendered  in  v.  8,  or  that  in  5,  43,  but  one  peculiarly  appropriate 


MARK  6,  27.  28.  29.  161 


in  this  place  as  originally  meaning  to  array  or  draw  up  and  then  to 
order  or  command,  both  in  a  miiitar}^  sense  or  application.  And  he 
(the  speculator,  guard,  or  executioner)  going  away  (from  the  palace  or 
the  royal  presence)  beheaded  him  (the  verb  used  by  Herod  in  v.  IG)  in 
the  2)riso)i.  which,  according  to  Josephus,  was  the  fortress  of  Mach^erus 
on  the  southern  frontier  of  Pera^a  near  the  Dead  Sea.  We  must,  there- 
fore, either  assume  an  interval  of  several  da5's  between  the  order  and 
the  execution,  or  suppose  this  feast  to  have  been  held  at  the  fortress 
daring  a  visit  of  the  tetrarch  to  that  part  of  his  dominions.  The  objec- 
tion to  the  latter  supposition,  which  is  otherwise  the  most  satisfactory, 
is  that  the  company  described  in  v.  21  are  the  lords,  high  captains,  and 
chief  estates,  not  of  Herod's  kingdom,  but  of  Galilee,  its  north-western 
province,  who  would  hardly  be  assembled  on  the  southern  frontier  of 
Peraea,  even  if  Herod  would  be  likely  to  select  a  military  station  near 
the  desert  for  the  celebration  of  his  birth-day. 

28.  ^nd  bronglit  liis  head  in  a  charger,  and  gave  it  to 
the  damsel ;  and  the  damsel  gave  it  to  her  mother. 

This  verse  records  the  punctual  performance  of  Herod's  promise 
and  the  exact  execution  of  his  orders,  not  excepting  the  dish,  which 
with  its- ghastly  contents  was  presented  to  the  dancmg-girl,  whose  fee' 
it  was,  and  by  her  to  her  mother,  who,  although  behind  the  scenes,  was 
the  principal  actor,  or  at  least  the  manager  of  this  whole  tragedy.  It 
may  here  be  added  that  she  afterwards  involved  her  husband  in  a 
ruinous  attempt  at  further  elevation,  which  was  thwarted  by  her 
brother  Herod  Agrippa  (the  one  whose  death  is  recorded  in  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  Acts),  and  resulted  in  the  exile  both  of  Herod  and  Herodias, 
first  to  Gaul,  and  then  Spain,  where  the  former  and  most  probably  the 
latter  died.  Salome,  true  to  her  Herodian  instincts,  was  married  twice 
to  near  relations ;  first  to  her  father's  brother  (and  namesake)  Philip 
the  Tetrarch  (see  above,  on  v.  17,  and  compare  Luke  3,  1),  and  after 
his  death  to  Aristobulus,  son  of  Herod  king  of  Chalcis,  to  whom  she 
bore  three  children.  These  facts  are  stated  by  Josephus,  the  contem- 
porary Jewish  historian  ;  the  story  of  her  death,  preserved  by  the 
Byzantine  writer  Nicephorus,  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  later  fiction. 

29.  And  when  his  disciples  heard  (of  it),  they  came 
and  took  up  his  corpse,  and  laid  it  in  a  tomb. 

His  disciples,  which  in  Matthew  (14,  12)  might  possibly  mean 
those  of  Jesus,  can  have  no  such  meaning  here  where  Jesus  is  not  men- 
tioned till  the  next  verse  and  in  obvious  connection  with  another  sub- 
ject. It  must  therefore  signify  John's  own  disciples,  either  those  who 
had  once  been  so  before  his  imprisonment,  or  those  who  still  professed 
to  be  so  under  soxue  mistaken  notion  as  to  the  relation  which  he  bore 
to  the  Messiah,  or  some  sceptical  misgiving  as  to  Jesus  (see  above,  on 
2,  18.)  It  is  possible  however  that  it  here  has  a  wider  sense  than 
either  of  those  just  proposed,  and  means  some  of  the  many  who  with- 


162  MARK  6,  29.  30.  31. 

out  having  ever  been  his  personal  attendants  or  disciples  in  the  strict 
sense  had  received  his  doctrines  and  his  baptism.  (For  a  similar  appli- 
cation of  the  term  to  many  followers  of  Jesus,  see  above,  on  2,  18.) 
Of  such  disciples  the  whole  land  was  full,  and  even  on  the  outskirts  of 
Perjea  there  could  not  be  wanting  some  to  pay  this  last  respect  to  his 
decapitated  body  and  to  announce  his  death  to  Jesus  (jNIatt.  14,  12), 
who  may  now  have  been  recognized  by  many  for  the  first  time  as  the 
Baptist's  legitimate  successor.  6(9r/.)se,  originally  any  thing  that  falls, 
and  when  connected  with  the  word  dead^  a  human  body,  especially  as 
lying  slain  or  exposed  ;  then  absolutely  used  by  later  writers  in  the 
same  sense.     Tonib^  monument,  memorial  (see  above,  on  5,  3.  5.) 

30.  And   the   apostles  gathered  themselves  together 

nnto  Jesus,  and  told  him  all  things,  both  what  they  had 

done,  and  what  they  had  taught. 

,  As  the  news  of  John's  imprisonment  led  Jesus  to  withdraw  from 
Judea  into  Galilee  and  there  commence  his  ministry  afresh  (see  above, 
on  1,  14),  so  the  news  of  his  death  is  followed  by  a  similar  retreat 
from  Galilee  itself  into  the  desert,  not  for  safety  but  for  rest,  and  that 
not  for  himself  but  for  his  followers.  Wliile  Matthew  (14,  13)  con- 
nects this  movement  with  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  but  without 
asserting  more  than  a  simple  chronological  succession,  Mark  interposes 
the  return  of  the  apostles  from  their  mission  and  a  gracious  invitation 
from  their  master  to  repose  after  their  labours  (compare  Luke  9,  10.) 
Gathered  themselves  together^  are  assembled  or  collected,  in  the  present 
tense,  but  as  the  form  may  be  either  passive  or  middle,  the  reflexive 
version  is  perhaps  the  best.  This  gathering  has  relation  to  the  various 
fields  or  routes  on  which  they  had  been  sent  forth  (see  above,  on  v.  7.) 
As  they  seem  to  have  returned  together,  there  was  probably  a  time 
fixed  when  they  went  forth  for  their  coming  back.  Told^  reported, 
brought  back  word  (as  in  jNlatt.  2,  8.  11,  4).  a  specific  sense  which  is 
peculiarlj'  appropriate  here  because  the  duty  of  returning  and  reporting 
was  involved  in  their  commission.  The  subject  of  their  report  was 
not  merely  what  things  they  had  done  (Luke  9.  10),  but  what  things 
they  had  taught.  The  former  phrase  may  be  generic  and  include  their 
whole  proceedings,  among  which  their  teaching  is  then  separately 
specified  (both  what  they  did  in  general  and  what  they  taught  in  par- 
ticular) ;  or  the  two  may  designate  the  two  great  functions  of  their 
ministry  like  those  of  the  Redeemer's  own,  namely  miracles  and  teach- 
ing (as  well  what  they  did  as  what  they  taught ;  compare  Acts,  1,  1.) 
In  either  case,  the  main  fact  stated  is  that  they  made  a  full  report  of 
this  their  first  apostolic  mission. 

31.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Come  ye  yourselves  apart 
into  a  desert  place,  and  rest  awhile  :  for  there  were  many 
coming  and  going,  and  they  had  no  leisure  so  much  as 
to  eat. 


MARK  6,  31.  32.  33.  163 

It  appeals  from  this  verse,  which  is  found  in  Mark  alone,  that  the 
Apostles  when  they  came  back  found  their  master,  not  enjoying  rest 
while  they  dischai-ged  his  office,  but  surrounded  as  before  by  a  fluc- 
tuating and  oppressive  multitude.  The  coming  and  the  going  tcere 
many^  an  expressive  phrase,  correcting  the  impression  which  the  his- 
tory might  otherwise  have  made,  that  the  body  of  Christ's  hearers  was 
a  fixed  one.  moving  en  masse  from  place  to  place.  There  were  some, 
we  know,  who  did  thus  follow  him,  not  only  the  apostles  but  a  body 
of  disciples  in  the  wider  sense.  Besides  these,  however,  and  no  doubt 
far  more  numerous  than  both,  was  the  ever-shifting  multitude  of 
strangers  from  each  neighbourhood  to  wdiich  he  came,  here  distin- 
guished from  his  constant  attendants  as  the  comers  and  the  goers.  So 
great  was  the  confusion  thus  occasioned  that  the  twelve  had  not  leisure^ 
or  rather  had  not  opportunity  or  good  time  (a  Greek  verb  correspond- 
ing to  the  adjective  in  v.  21),  even  to  eat,  i.  e.  to  take  their  regular 
repasts.  In  gracious  condescension  to  their  wants,  as  far  as  possible 
removed  from  all  ascetic  rigour,  he  invites  them  to  a  desert  (i.  e.  a 
secluded  unfrequented  place)  to  rest  themselves  a  little  (while),  or  in 
a  small  degree,  to  which  the  Greek  word  may  be  equally  applied. 
Come  (or  hither,  see  above,  on  1,  1),  ye  yourselves,  a  phrase  distinguish- 
ing the  twelve  from  all  his  other  followers,  as  those  by  whom  he  wished 
to  be  accompanied. 

32.  And  tliej  departed  into  a  desert  place  by  ship  pri- 
vately. 

And  tliey  tcent  aioay  (accordingly)  into  a  desert  jplace  Tyy  ship,  or 
rather  {in)  the  ship,  i.  e.  the  one  provided  by  our  Lord's  direction  for 
his  own  exclusive  use  (see  above,  on  3,  9. )  Privately,  in  private,  or 
apart,  relating  not  so  much  to  the  mode  of  their  departure  as  to  its 
design  and  purpose.  We  know  from  other  sources  that  the  place  to 
which  they  went  was  an  unfrequented  spot  belonging  to  a  town  called 
Bethsaida  (Luke  9,10)  on  the  other  (or  eastern)  side  of  the  sea  of 
Galilee  or  Tiberias  (John  6,  1.)  We  are  now  approaching  an  occur- 
rence so  remarkable  that  all  the  four  evangelists  have  given  a  detailed 
account  of  it.  This  not  only  furnishes  a  richer  source  of  illustration 
than  in  any  former  case,  but  creates  a  strong  presumption  that  the 
matter  thus  contained  in  all  the  gospels  is  for  some  reason  worthy  of 
particular  attention. 

33.  And  tlie  people  saAV  them  departing,  and  many 
knew  him,  and  ran  afoot  thither  ont  of  all  cities,  and  ont- 
went  them,  and  came  together  nnto  him. 

We  have  here  a  striking  proof  that  our  Saviour's  popularity  had 
not  begun  to  wane  when  this  occurrence  took  place ;  for  not  only  did 
the  multitudes  still  throng  him  when  at  home  (v.  31),  but  no  sooner 
had  he  pushed  off  in  his  boat  to  seek  a  momentary  respite  elsewhere, 


164  MARK  6,  33.  34. 

than  the  masses  put  themselves  in  motion  to  pursue  or  rather  to  out- 
strip him,  so  that  when  he  reached  his  place  of  destination  they  were 
ready  to  receive  him  and  soon  surrounded  him  as  if  he  had  not  left 
them.  There  is  rather  an  unusual  variation  in  the  text  of  this  verse 
as  preserved  in  diiferent  manuscripts.  The  multitudes  in  the  first 
clause,  him  in  the  second,  and  came  together'  to  him  in  the  last,  are  all 
omitted  by  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critics.  These  omissions 
however  leave  the  sense  essentially  unchanged.  They  (according  to 
the  common  text,  the  croicds  or  masses)  saw  them  (Jesus  and  the 
twelve)  dejjarti?)^,  stealing  awaj'-.  the  verb  according  to  its  etymology 
suggesting  the  idea  of  a  covert  or  concealed  departure,  which  in  this 
case  was  necessary  to  effect  their  purpose.  It  should  be  observed, 
however,  that  the  Greek  verb  has  a  wider  sense  in  general  usage,  and 
occurs  in  v.  31  above  in  simple  opposition  or  antithesis  to  coming. 
And  many  Iniew  (hi7n),  recognized  his  person,  as  he  went  into  the 
boat,  a  very  natural  expression,  as  great  numbers  even  of  those  who  saw 
the  embarkation,  would  of  course  be  less  flimiliar  with  our  Lord's  ap- 
pearance, or  would  see  him  less  distinctly  in  the  general  confusion. 
Afoot,  an  English  adverb  corresponding  exactly  to  the  Greek  in  form 
and  derivation,  but  supplanted  in  the  modern  dialect  by  on  foot,  while 
its  correlative,  ahead,  is  even  more  in  vogue  than  ever,  though  with 
some  modification  of  its  meaning.  For  a  similar  change,  but  in  the 
opposite  direction,  compare  asleep  (Acts  7,  GO)  and  on  sleej)  (Acts  13, 
36.)  As  they  went  on  foot,  it  is  of  course  implied  that  they  went  hy 
land,  and  some  regard  this  as  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  (jre^j]) 
which  is  sometimes  used  in  opposition  to  a  voyage  by  water  in  Herod- 
otus and  Homer.  But  even  in  these  cases  the  idea  of  a  land-march  or 
journey  is  rather  necessarily  implied  than  formally  expressed.  From 
all  the  towns  or  cities  in  that  region,  not  excluding  the  adjacent  rural 
districts,  which  are  generally  represented  as  dependent  on  the  nearest 
cities,  as  for  instance  in  the  case  of  Bethsaida  and  its  desert  (see  above, 
on  V.  32,  and  compare  Luke  9, 10.)  Ban  thither,  literally,  ran  together 
there,  i.  e.  converged  upon  the  point  towards  which  they  saw  that  he 
was  steering,  and  which  seems  to  have  been  not  far  from  the  northern 
end  of  the  lake,  so  that  the  distance  which  the  multitude  passed  over 
may  not  have  been  very  great.  Outicent  (or  went  before^  them.  i.  e. 
came  first  to  the  place  selected.  And  came  together  to  him,  whether 
a  part  of  the  true  text  or  not,  is  no  doubt  a  correct  statement  of  the 
fact,  to  wit.  that  on  arriving  at  their  chosen  place  of  rest,  the  twelve 
found  precisely  the  same  state  of  things  from  which  they  were  escap- 
ing. In  the  picture  of  this  singular  and  interesting  incident,  Mark,  far 
from  acting  the  abridger,  is  by  far  the  most  minute  and  graphic. 

34.  And  Jesus,  when  lie  came  out,  saw  mucli  people, 
and  was  moved  with  couipassion  toward  them,  because 
they  were  as  sheep  not  having  a  shepherd  ;  and  he  began 
to  teach  them  many  things. 


MARK  6,  34.  35.  165 

As  these  were  not  strangers  or  new-comers,  but  the  same  crowds 
who  had  pressed  to  see  and  hear  him  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake, 
their  eager  importunity  excited  our  Lord's  pity.  Going  out  (from  his 
boat,  or  from  the  place  of  his  retirement,  which  however  he  had 
scarcely  reached,  as  they  outwent  him)  he  saw  much  'people  (literally, 
crowd  or  concourse),  and  was  moved  with  co?7ipassion  toward  (or  Gver) 
them,  the  same  peculiar  idiom  that  was  used  above  in  1, 41,  and  there 
explained.  What  excited  his  divine  and  human  sympathy  was  not  of 
course  their  numbers  or  their  physical  condition  but  their  spiritual 
destitution.  The  figures  of  a  shepherd  and  a  flock  to  denote  the  mu- 
tual relation  of  religious  guides  and  those  who  follow  them  are  frequent 
in  the  Scriptures  and  too  natural  to  need  elucidation.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  converse  of  this  figure,  or  a  flock  without  a  shepherd,  is 
the  most  afiecting  that  can  be  emplo3ed  to  represent  the  want  of  nur- 
ture, guidance  and  protection,  the  extreme  of  weakness,  helplessness, 
and  imminent  exposure  both  to  force  and  fraud,  dispersion  and  destruc- 
tion. At  the  view  of  this  representative  multitude,  drawn  from  so 
many  quarters  and  perhaps  swelled  by  the  yearly  stream  of  pilgrims 
to  the  Passover  (John  6,  4),  our  Lord  began  without  delay  to  teach 
them,  thereby  showing  what  he  reckoned  their  most  urgent  want,  and 
also  that  although  it  was  his  miracles  of  healing  that  had  prompted 
them  to  follow  him  (John  G,  2),  they  were  not  without  some  just  view 
of  the  intimate  relation  of  his  wonders  to  his  doctrines,  or  at  least  not 
unwilling  to  receive  instruction  from  the  same  lips  which  commanded 
with  authority  the  most  malignant  demons  and  diseases. 

35.  And  when  the  day  was  now  far  spent,  his  disciples 
came  unto  him,  and  said.  This  is  a  desert  pUxce,  and  now 
the  time  (is)  far  passed. 

When  his  discourse  was  ended,  or  perhaps  while  it  was  3'et  in 
progress,  his  disciples,  i.  e.  the  apostles  (Luke  9, 12)  began  to  be  un- 
easy at  the  presence  of  so  vast  a  multitude  in  a  place  which  had  been 
chosen  for  the  very  reason  that  it  was  secluded  and  remote  from 
thoroughfares,  though  not  cut  off  from  all  communication  with  the  sur- 
rounding cultivated  country.  Already  much  time  (literally,  Jiour  or 
daytime)  having  been  (or  past)^  the  verb  emplo3^ed  twice  above  (vs.  2. 21) 
in  reference  to  the  lapse  of  time  and  there  explained.  Sis  disciples,  com- 
ing to  him,  probably  while  he  was  still  engaged  in  teaching,  with  a  view 
to  interrupt  him.  /Saying  that  (ore  as  in  vs.  4. 14. 15. 16. 18. 23.)  dese?'t  is 
the  place  (where  we  are  now  assembled)  arid  now  (already,  or  by  this  time, 
as  in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse)  the  time  is  far  passed,  a  paraphrase 
rather  than  a  version  of  a  highly  idiomatic  Greek  phrase  not  admitting  of 
exact  translation.  Day  in  the  first  clause,  and  time  in  this,  are  one  and 
the  same  word  in  the  original,  identical  with  the  Latin  hora  and  the 
English  liour,  but  used  in  Greek  with  greater  latitude  of  meaning, 
ranging  from  hours  or  even  moments  to  the  seasons  of  the  year  and  time 
in  general.     Here  it  may  either  have  the  Latin  sense  or  that  of  day- 


166  MARK  6,  35.  36.  37. 

time.    Already   the  time  (or  daytime)  is  much,  i.  e.  the  part  of  it  al- 
ready gone. 

36.  Send  them  away,  that  they  may  go  into  the  conn- 
try  round  about,  and  into  the  viUages,  and  buy  themselves 
bread  ;  for  they  have  nothing  to  eat. 

This  anxious  statement  as  to  the  lateness  of  the  hour  is  followed  by 
a  proposition.  Send  them  away^  dismiss,  dissolve  them  as  an  audience  or 
congregation  (as  the  same  verb  means  in  Acts  19,  41.  28^  25.)  This  con- 
firms the  previous  supposition  that  our  Lord  was  still  discoursing  when 
the  twelve  made  this  suggestion,  which  was  therefore  tantamount  to 
saying  that  he  was  detaining  them  too  long,  that  it  was  time  to  pause 
and  give  them  daylight  to  disperse  in.  The  hint  was  no  doubt  well- 
meant,  and  regarded  by  the  men  who  made  it  as  pre-eminently  wise 
and  prudent,  little  suspecting  that  their  master,  far  from  being  at  a 
loss  as  they  were,  had  pursued  this  y^ry  course  in  order  to  convince 
them  and  others  how  little  he  depended  on  the  ordinary  means  of 
subsistence.  The  disciples  add  a  still  more  specific  proposition,  that 
the  people  be  dispersed  among  the  nearest  farms  and  villages  to  buy 
provisions  for  themselves.  That  going  away  into  the  Jields,  i.  e. 
country  as  opposed  to  town  (see  above,  on  5, 14),  or  detached  farm- 
houses as  opposed  to  villages.  Hound  aiout,  literally,  (^in)  a  circle, 
(see  above,  on  v.  6  and  3,  34),  not  necessarily  a  small  one,  but  as  large 
as  might  be  requisite  in  order  to  supply  so  great  a  number.  Buy^  in 
Greek  a  word  peculiarly  appropriate  because  it  originally  means,  to 
marlxct^  and  has  primary  reference  to  the  purchase  of  provisions.  For 
what  they  may  eat  they  have  not,  a  fact  which  they  had  ascertained  by 
asking  or  more  probably  inferred  fi'om  the  appearance  of  the  people, 
who  could  scarcely  be  a  caravan  of  pilgrims,  but  were  probably  just 
come  from  their  own  houses. 

3T.  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Give  ye  them  to 
eat.  And  they  say  unto  him,  Shall  we  go  and  buy  two 
hundred  pennyworth  of  bread,  and  give  them  to  eat  ? 

But  he  ansiDering  said  to  them  (the  twelve),  Give  to  them  (the  mul- 
titude) yourselves  (instead  of  sending  them  away  to  purchase  some- 
thing) to  eat.  We  learn  from  John  (6,  6),  that  Philip  was  the  spokes- 
man upon  this  occasion,  and  that  our  Saviour  in  this  conversation  tried 
the  faith  of  his  disciples,  i.  e.  their  confidence  in  his  power  to  pro- 
vide for  all  emergencies.  Going  aicay  shall  ice  huy,  in  Greek  an  aorist 
subjunctive,  not  exactly  corresponding  cither  to  shall,  can,  or  must  in 
English,  though  any  of  these  forms  might  be  employed  to  represent  it. 
2\co  hundred jiennyicorth  ofhread,\\tGV'\\\y^  loaves  of  (or  for)  two  hun 
dred  denarii,  a  Roman  silver  coin  current  in  the  provinces  and  varying 
in  value  from  fifteen  to  seventeen  cents  of  our  money  (see  below,  on 
12, 15.  14,  5.)     The  precise  sum  mentioned  is  of  no  importance,  as  it  is 


MARK  6,  37.  38.  39.  40.  167 

not  an  estimate  of  what  would  be  required,  but  merely  a  round  number 
meaning  a  large  sum  or  one  entirely  beyond  their  means. 

38.  He  saitli  nnto  them,  How  many  loaves  have  ye  ? 
go  and  see.  And  when  they  knew,  they  say,  Five,  and 
two  lishes. 

But  (instead  of  answering  this  objection  or  explaining  his  design) 
he  sends  them  to  inquire  into  their  own  resources,  that  the  scantiness 
of  these  might  enhance  the  subsequent  suppl}--,  and  cut  off  all  suspicion 
of  its  being  any  thing  less  than  a  miracle.  And  hioicing,  having 
learned  or  ascertained  by  inquiry  or  inspection. 

39.  And  he  commanded  them  to  make  all  sit  down  by 
companies  upon  the  green  grass. 

Commanded,  the  word  used  above  in  v.  27,  and  peculiarly  appropri- 
ate to  the  distribution  and  arrangement  of  large  numbers.  Sit  down, 
literally,  lie  doicn,  or  recline^  the  customary  posture  even  at  table  (see 
above,  on  2,  15),  but  especiall}''  convenient  in  the  open  air,  and  when 
the  food  was  spread  upon  the  ground.  By  companies  or  messes,  the 
original  noun  meaning  corapotation  or  the  act  of  drinking  together, 
then  a  convivial  part}",  then  a  mess  or  company  at  table.  The  original 
construction  is  peculiar  and  idiomatic,  the  idea  of  distribution  being  in- 
dicated not  as  in  the  version  by  a  preposition,  but  by  simple  repetition 
of  the  noun  {symposia  symposia)  'messes  messes,  i.  e.  mess  by  mess.  (For 
another  instance  of  this  idiom  see  above,  on  v.  7.)  On  the  green 
grass,  a  circumstance  which  not  only  adds  to  the  beauty  of  the  picture 
and  betra\'S  a  vivid  recollection  of  the  scene  described,  perhaps  that  of 
Peter  (compare  John  6,  10),  but  explains  the  word  desert  previously 
used  (vs.  31.  32.  35)  as  denoting  not  a  barren  waste,  but  only  an  unfre- 
quented solitude,  most  probably  an  untilled  pasture-ground,  to  which 
the  corresponding  Hebrew  word  is  frequently  applied  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (e.  g.  Ps.  65, 13.  Joel  2,  22.) 

40.  And  they  sat  down  in  ranks,  by  hundreds  and  by 

fifties. 

Sat  down,  literally,  fell  down,  threw  themselves  upon  the  grass 
with  a  lively  simultaneous  movement,  which  might  be  described  as  the 
whole  multitude  falling  to  the  earth  at  once.  In  ranTcs,  a  similar  dis- 
tributive construction  to  the  one  in  the  preceding  verse,  but  with  a  dif- 
ferent noun  properly  denoting  beds  or  plats  in  a  garden,  and  then  any 
regular  form  such  as  squares  and  parallelograms.  It  is  here  apjilied  to 
larger  and  smaller  messes  or  parties  of  fifty  and  a  hundred  persons. 
The  construction  here  is  like  our  own,  the  preposition  {ava)  signifying 
distribution.  This  regular  and  formal  distribution  of  the  people  was 
intended  in  the  first  place  to  prevent  confusion  in  supplying  them,  but 
also  to  facilitate  inspection  and  authenticate  the  miracle. 


168  MARK  6,  41.  42. 


41.  And  when  he  had  taken  the  five  loaves,  and  the 
two  fishes,  he  looked  up  to  heaven,  and  blessed,  and  brake 
the  loaves,  and  gave  (them)  to  his  disciples  to  set  before 
them ;  and  tlie  two  fishes  divided  he  among  them  all. 

And  talcing  (^or  having  takeii)  the  Jive  loaves  (or  'breads)  and  the 
two  JisJies,  looking  i(])  (or  having  lool'ed  iqj)  into  the  slcy  (or  heaveii) 
he  Messed  (the  bread,  or  asked  a  blessing  on  it)  and  broke  xq^  (or  into 
smaller  parts)  the  loaves  and  gave  them  to  his  disciples^  that  they  might 
set  (or  place  them)  before  (or  by  them)  (i.  e.  the  multitude)  and  the 
two  JisTies  he  distributed  to  all.  He  took  the  five  loaves  in  succession, 
blessing  each  or  all  together.-  Bread  and  loaf  are  expressed  by  the  same 
word  in  Greek  as  they  are  in  French  {pain^  jjains.)  LooMng  iij)  is  a 
natural  and  scriptural  gesture  in  addressing  God,  whom  all  men  as  it 
were  instinctively  regard  as  dwelling  in  some  special  sense  above  them. 
Heaven  denotes  that  distant  place  of  God's  abode,  but  also  the  visible 
expanse  which  seems  to  separate  us  from  it  (see  above,  on  1,  10.) 
Blessed.^  a  verb  originally  meaning  to  speak  well  of,  but  in  usage  applied 
to  God's  conferring  favours  upon  men  (Matt.  25,  34).  to  men's  invoking 
such  favours  upon  others  (Luke  2, 34),  and  to  men's  praising  God  particu- 
larly for  such  favours  (Luke  2,  28).  In  the  case  before  us  these  three 
senses  may  be  said  to  meet ;  for  as  a  man  our  Saviour  gave  thanks  and 
implored  a  blessing,  while  as  God  he  granted  it.  The  intervention  of  the 
twelve  in  this  distribution,  while  it  answered  the  important  but  inferior 
purpose  of  securing  order  and  decorum,  also  enabled  them  to  testify  more 
positively  both  to  the  scantiness  of  the  provision  and  to  the  suflficiency 
of  the  supply.  Set  before  them,  lay  beside  them,  or  place  near  them,  so 
as  to  be  within  the  reach  of  all  partakers.  Divided  among,  not  merely 
separated  into  parts,  but  distributed  to  all  those  present,  both  which 
acts,  distinctly  stated  in  relation  to  the  bread,  are  here  expressed  by 
one  and  the  same  verb  {(^epiae).  The  particularity  of  this  description 
corresponds  to  the  deliberate  and  formal  nature  of  the  acts  themselves, 
intended  to  arouse  attention  and  preclude  all  surmise  of  deception  or 
collusion.  Nothing  indeed  could  less  resemble  the  confusion  and 
obscurity  of  all  pretended  mii-acles,  than  the  regular  and  almost  cere- 
monious style  in  which  this  vast  crowd  was  first  seated  and  then  fed, 
without  the  least  disorder  or  concealment  as  to  any  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings, . 

42.  And  they  did  all  eat  and  were  filled. 

The  unequal  division  of  the  verses  here  is  arbitrary  and  capricious, 
and  should  serve  to  remind  us  that  this  whole  arrangement  is  the  work 
of  a  learned  printer  in  the  sixteenth  ccntur}'-,  and  not  entitled  to  the 
least  weight  in  deciding  the  construction  of  a  sentence  or  connection  of 
a  passage.  Bid  all  eat  is  in  modei-n  English  an  emphatic  form,  the 
auxiliary  strengthening  the  verb,  as  if  the  fact  had  been  denied  or 
doubted  ;  but  it  here  represents  the  simple  past  tense,  all  ate,or  retain- 
ing the  Greek  collocation,  ate  all,  implying  that  the  miraculous  supply 


MARK   G,  42.  43.  169 

of  food  was  limited  only  by  the  number  of  consumers.  Nor  was  it  a 
mere  nominal  supply  in  each  case,  but  a  full  satisfaction  of  tho  appetite, 
even  in  the  case  of  the  most  hungry.  Filled,  satisfied  or  sated,  a  Greek 
verb  anciently  confined  to  the  feeding  of  the  lower  animals,  but  in  the 
later  writers  (such  as  Arrian  and  Plutarch)  extended  to  the  human 
subject. 

43.  And  they  took  up  twelve  baskets  full  of  the  frag- 
ments, and  of  the  fishes. 

We  have  here  a  remarkable  example  of  our  Saviour's  provident  dis- 
cretion, even  in  the  exercise  of  his  almighty  power.  Had  this  miracle 
left  no  trace  of  itself  except  in  the  meraoiy  of  men,  it  might  have 
seemed  like  a  dream  or  an  illusion.  But  against  this  Jesus  guarded  in 
the  most  effectual  manner  by  commanding  his  disciples  who  had  aided 
in  the  distribution  to  collect  the  fragments  which  were  left  over  after 
all  were  tilled  (John  G,  12).  And  they  tooh  vp^  and  away  with  them, 
both  which  ideas  are  suggested  by  the  usage  of  tho  Greek  verb  and  are 
equally  appropriate,  not  only  here  but  in  v.  8.  29,  and  in  2,  9-12.  4,  15. 
25.  Fragments  (from  frkingo,  to  break,  like  KXaafxara  from  kX(ico). 
broken  pieces,  scraps,  or  what  are  called  in  common  parlance  '•  broken 
victuals."  The  design  of  this  command  was  threefold,  hrst  to  dis- 
courage waste  and  teach  a  wise  economy  even  in  the  lesser  things  of 
this  life ;  secondly,  to  show  that  in  this  case  as  in  miracles  of  heahng, 
the  miraculous  ellect  was  to  be  instantly  succeeded  by  the  usual  con- 
dition and  the  operation  of  all  ordinary  laws  (see  above,  on  5,  43),  so 
that  although  they  had  just  seen  a  vast  concourse  supernaturally  fed, 
they  were  themselves  to  use  the  fragments  for  their  subsequent  sup- 
port ;  and  thirdly,  to  preserve  for  some  time  in  their  sight  and  their 
possession  the  substantial  memorials  of  this  wonderful  event,  which 
was  attested  and  recalled  to  mind  by  every  crust  and  eveiy  crumb  of 
which  the  company  partook  until  the  fragments  were  exhausted.  And 
accordingly  we  find  that  our  Lord,  when  afterwards  reminding  them  of 
this  great  wonder  and  another  like  it,  speaks  expressly  of  the  quan- 
tity left  over  after  all  were  filled,  as  one  of  the  most  memorable  cir- 
cumstances in  the  case  (see  below,  on  8,  19.  20j.  The  Vatican  manu- 
script, supposed  to  be  the  oldest  extant,  for  ticelce  hashetsfull  offrag- 
meiits  reads  twelve  iasl-etfuls  of  fragments^  a  Ibrm  of  expression  also 
used  in  English,  and  differing  from  the  other  by  implying  that  the 
basket  was  used  only  as  a  measure.  And  from  tkefslies  is  ambiguous, 
as  it  may  either  mean  that  the  twelve  baskets  contained  fragments 
both  of  bread  and  fish,  or  the  contrary,  to  wit,  that  the  twelve  baskets 
were  from  the  bread  alone  (compare  John  G,  13j.  The  first  is  much 
more  probable,  because  there  could  be  no  reason  for  distinguishing  be- 
tween the  two  kinds  of  food  which  had  been  eaten  together ;  and  be- 
cause if  they  had  been  thus  distinguished,  there  would  probably  have 
been  a  similar  specification  as  to  the  fragments  of  the  fish  (but  see 
below,  upon  the  next  verse.)  These  two  considerations  are  too  strong 
to  be  out  -weighed  by  John's  exclusiye  mention  of  the  loaves  in  speak- , 
8 


170  MARK  6,  43.  44. 

ing  of  the  fragments,  which  hke  other  arguments  from  silence  or  omis- 
sion is  wholly  negative  and  therefore  inconclusive.  It  only  remains  to 
be  considered  whether  these  fragments  were  the  refuse  loft  by  each 
partaker  in  the  place  where  he  had  eaten,  or  the  portions  broken  by 
our  Lord  for  distribution  and  remaining  untouched  because  more  than 
was  required  to  supply  all  present.  The  latter  is  not  only  a  more 
pleasing  supposition,  but  equally  consistent  with  the  terms  of  the  nar- 
rative and  the  other  circumstances  of  the  case.  That  Jesus  should 
have  furnished  an  excessive  or  superfluous  supply  is  not  at  variance 
with  his  wisdom  or  otiiniscienco,  as  he  may  have  done  it  for  the  very 
purposes  before  suggested.  The  word  translated  basket  is  used  in  a 
Latin  form  (^cophinus)  by  Juvenal,  as  the  usual  baggage  of  the  Jews 
when  travelling.  The  number  twelve  has  reference  to  the  twelve 
apostles,  so  that  each  filled  one,  perhaps  with  some  allusion  to  the 
symbolical  import  of  the  miracle. 

44.  And  they  that  did  eat  of  the  loaves  were  about 
five  thousand  men. 

They  that  did  eat  of  (or  more  literally,  tTiose  eating)  the  loa/ces  were 
(aJ/out^  omitted  by  the  latest  critics  here,  but  not  in  the  parallel  ac- 
counts) ^fg  thousand,  without  any  reference  to  age  or  sex.  But  Luke 
(0,  14)  and  John  (6, 10)  have  Jice  thousand  men  (av8p€s).  and  ^Matthew 
(14,  21)  adds  expressly,  icithout  icomen  and  children.  This  may  either 
mean  that  there  were  none  such  present,  or  merely  that  they  are  not 
comprehended  in  the  total  of  5000.  The  latter  is  no  doubt  the  true 
solution  and  to  be  explained  by  a  fact  already  mentioned  (see  above, 
on  2,  15),  that  the  men  in  ancient  times  as  in  the  east  at  present  ate 
together,  and  reclined  at  their  repasts,  while  the  women  and  children 
ate  apart  from  them  and  in  the  ordinary  sitting  posture.  Hence  the 
companies  or  messes  upon  this  occasion  would  be  composed  of  men  exclu- 
sively, and  they  alone  could  be  numbered  with  facility  from  their  dis- 
tribution into  fifties  and  hundreds  (see  above,  on  v.  40.)  It  is  not  to 
be  supposed  however  that  the  women  and  children  would  be  over- 
looked in  this  benevolent  provision,  whether  many  or  few,  as  some  sup- 
pose upon  the  ground  that  the  multitude  was  chiefly  composed  of  pil- 
grims on  their  way  to  the  passover  (John  6,  4),  which  only  males 
were  required  to  attend  (Ex.  23,  17),  (Deut.  IG,  16.)  But  how  is  this 
to  be  reconciled  with  their  having  no  provisions  (see  above  on  v.  36), 
which  seems  rather  to  imply  a  concourse  of  people  drawn  too  far  from 
home  by  the  excitement  of  pursuit  (see  above,  on  v.  33),  and  probably 
composed  of  men,  women,  and  children.  But  wlicther  these  were  few' 
or  many,  it  seem-s  clear  that  they  were  not  included  in  the  number 
stated  for  the  reason  above  given,  whence  it  follows,  either  that  those 
least  able  to  dispense  with  food  were  not  provided,  or  that  the  number 
fed  far  transcended  that  recorded,  which  is  icitJtout  (i.  e.  exclusive  of) 
teamen  and  children.  Five  thousand  therefore  is  the  minimum  of  those 
su])plied  by  this  stupendous  miracle,  being  merely  the  number  that 
could  be  determined  at  a  glance  from  the  methodical  arrangement  of 


MARK  6,  44.  45.  171 


the  messes.  Even  at  this  rate,  the  original  supply  was  only  that  of 
one  loaf  (and  probably  a  small  one)  to  a  thousand  men  (besides  women 
and  children.)  But  the  greatness  of  the  miracle  consists  not  merely  in 
the  vast  increase  of  nutritive  material,  but  in  the  nature  of  the  process 
which  effected  it,  and  which  must  be  regarded  as  creative,  since  it  neces- 
sarily involves  not  merely  change  of  form  or  quality,  or  new  combina- 
tions of  existing  matter,  but  an  absolute  addition  to  the  matter  itself. 
The  infidel  pretence  that  Christ  is  here  described  as  visibly  multiply- 
ing loaves  and  fishes  in  his  own  hands,  so  that  every  particle  distributed 
was  separately  given  out  by  him,  is  as  groundless  and  absurd  as  it  is 
impious  in  spirit  and  malignant  in  design.  No  such  process  of  increase 
was  presented  to  the  eyes  of  the  spectators,  who  saw  nothing  but  the 
fact  that  the  loaves  and  fishes  still  continued  to  be  served  until  the 
whole  multitude  had  been  supplied.  Equally  groundless  yet  instruc- 
tive are  the  efforts  of  some  sceptical  interpreters  to  get  rid  of  this 
miracle  as  originally  a  parable  afterwards  transformed  into  a  history, 
or  a  myth  founded  on  the  story  of  the  manna,  or  of  Elijah  fed  by 
angels  and  ravens,  or  on  the  doctrine  of  the  living  bread  as  taught  by 
Christ  (John  C,  48)  and  his  apostles  (1  Cor.  10,  IC.)  However  specious 
these  hypotheses  may  be,  they  are  at  bottom  as  gratuitous  and  hollow 
as  the  one  of  olden  date,  now  laughed  at  even  by  neologists  themselves, 
that  this  is  not  recorded  as  a  miracle  at  all,  but  merelj'  as  a  figurative 
statement  of  the  fact  that  by  inducing  his  disciples  to  distribute  their 
own  scanty  store,  Jesus  prevailed  on  others  present  who  were  well 
provided  to  communicate  with  others  who  had  nothing.  The  only 
rational  alternative  is  either  to  refute  the  overwhelming  proof  of  authen- 
ticity and  inspiration,  or  to  accept  the  passage  as  the  literal  record  of  a 
genuine  creative  miracle,  the  first  and  greatest  in  the  history  and  there- 
fore perhaps  fully  detailed  in  all  the  gospels. 

45.  And  straightway  lie  constrained  his  disciples  to 

get  into  the  ship,  and  to  go  to  tlie  other  side  before  nnto 

Bethsaida,  while  he  sent  away  the  people. ' 

The  effect  of  this  transcendent  miracle  which,  more  than  any  that 
preceded  it.  appears  to  have  convinced  men  of  our  Lord's  JMessiahship 
(John  6,  14),  was  immediately  followed  by  another  more  especially 
intended  to  confirm  this  impression  on  the  minds  of  his  disciples.  This 
restriction  of  the  circle  of  spectators  was  occasioned  by  his  knowledge 
of  a  movement  in  the  multitude  to  assert  his  regal  claims  as  the  ^Mes- 
siah  (John  6.  15.)  To  escape  this  dangerous  and  mistaken  view  of  his 
pretensions,  he  withdrew  himself  at  once  into  the  highlands,  on  the 
verge  of  which  the  multitude  had  just  been  fed  (.John  G,  3.)  But  liist 
lie  cojistrained  (compelled  or  forced)  his  discijjles  to  enter  (or  embark 
upon)  the  ship,  which  waited  on  him  for  the  purpose  (see  above  on  3, 
9),  and  go  be/ore  him  (literally  lead  foricard,  lead  the  way  to)  Beth- 
saida.  not  the  city  of  Gaulonitis,  at  the  north-eastern  end  of  the  lake 
and  eastward  of  the  place  where  the  Jordan  enters  it,  in  the  desert 
tract  south-east  of  which  the  miracle  had  just  been  wrought  (Luke  9, 


172  MARK  C,  45.  46.  47. 

10),  but  Bethsaida  of  Galilee,  the  birth-place  of  Simon,  Andrew,  and 
Philip  (John  1,  45),  elsewhere  mentioned  with  Capernaum  (Matt.  11, 
21.  Luke  10, 13),  and  therefore  probably  not  far  from  it,  but  at  all 
events  upon  the  lake-shore,  as  Eusebius  expressly  mentions.  The 
name  is  Aramaic,  and  denotes  a  fishery,  which  accounts  for  its  being 
borne  by  more  than  one  place  on  the  lake  where  fish  was  so  abundant 
and  fishing  so  common  an  employment.  (See  above,  on  1,  29.)  He 
compelled  tliem^  i.  e.  ordered  them  against  their  will,  as  they  would 
naturally  be  averse  to  leave  him,  both  on  his  account  and  on  their  own, 
a  repugnance  probably  increased  by  the  prospect  of  a  nocturnal  voyage 
on  the  lake  where  they  had  once  been  rescued  from  destruction  by  his 
presence.  (See  above,  on  4,  35-41.)  Some  assume,  as  an  additional 
reason  for  sending  the  disciples  away,  that  they  were  disposed  to  join 
in  the  popular  movement  for  making  him  a  king.  However  this  may 
be,  he  stayed  behind  until  he  should  dismiss  (dissolve,  break  up)  the 
crowd.  (See  above,  on  v.  36.)  This  was  probably  a  matter  of  some 
difficulty,  and  requiring  the  exercise  not  only  of  authority  but  also  of 
a  superhuman  influence. 

46.  And  when  lie  liad  sent  tliem  away,  ho  departed 
into  a  mountain  to  pra}^. 

Sent  them  aicay  is  not  the  same  Greek  verb  as  that  employed 
in  the  preceding  verse,  but  one  originally  meaning  to  order  away 
(a  kindred  compound  to  the  one  in  v.  39),  and  in  the  middle  voice 
to  separate  one's  self  by  taking  leave  or  bidding  farewell,  which  is  its 
obvious  sense  in  every  other  place  where  it  occurs  (Luke  9,  6L  14,  13. 
Acts  18,  18.  21.  2  Cor.  2,  13.)  It  is  wholly  arbitrary  therefore  in  this 
one  place  to  depart  from  so  uniform  an  usage  and  explain  it  as  synony- 
mous with  that  before  it,  the  rather  as  the  customary  sense  is  both 
appropriate  and  striking.  Having  talvcn  leave  of  them  (or  hidden  tJiem 
farewell)^  which  was  no  doubt  the  benignant  form  in  which  he  exerted 
his  authorit}'",  and  even  his  extraordinary  power,  to  induce  them  to 
disperse.  Departed^  went  away,  into  the  mountain  (not  a  mountain^ 
but  the  highlands  or  hill-country),  which  has  been  already  several  times 
mentioned  (see  above,  on  3,  13.  5,  5.  11),  and  in  which  he  was  already 
(John  6,  3),  so  that  he  is  only  represented  as  penetrating  further  into 
its  recesses,  not  for  safety  or  repose,  but  to  pray,  another  striking  inci- 
dental notice  of  our  Lord's  devotional  habits  (sec  above  on  1,  35),  also 
given  here  by  INIatthew  (14,  23),  and  so  far  from  being  inconsistent 
with  the  statement  made  by  John  (6,  15)  of  his  motive  for  retiring, 
that  the  two  things  were  probably  connected  in  the  closest  manner, 
as  the  plan  of  making  him  a  king  may  have  been  both  the  occasion 
and  the  burden  of  his  prayers  at  this  tune. 

47.  And  wlien  even  was   come,  the  ship  was  in  tliv 
midst  of  the  sea,  and  he  alone  on  the  land. 

And  evening  being  come  (or  it  being  evening,  see  above,  on  4,  35.' 


MARK  G,  47.  48.  49.  173 

This  relates  to  the  double  evenhig  of  the  Jewish  day,  one  beginning 
early  in  the  afternoon,  the  other  at  sunset  or  at  dusk.  (See  below,  on 
14,  17.)  The  first  of  these  is  meant  in  jNIatt.  14,  15  (see  above  on  v. 
35),  the  other  here  (and  in  Matt.  14,  23.)  In  the  midst  of  the  sea,  not 
in  its  mathematical  centre  (see  above,  on  3,  3,)  nor  exactly  half-seas- 
over,  but  out  at  sea,  away  from  shore,  i.  e.  twenty-five  or  thirty  stadia 
or  furlongs  (John  6,  19.)  Me  alone,  i.  e.  without  them  or  other  human 
compan}'.  Upo7i  the  kmd,  either  still  upon  the  mountain  (v.  4G),  or 
below  it  on  the  shore. 


4:8.  And  he  saw  tliem  toiling  in  rowing  ;  for  the  wind 
was  contrary  unto  them  :  and  about  the  fourth  watch  of 
the  night  he  cometh  unto  them,  walking  upon  tlie  sea, 
and  woukl  have  passed  by  them. 

Toiling  is  an  inexact  and  feeble  version  of  a  Greek  word  meaning 
properly  tormented  (see  above,  on  5,  7),  here  applied  not  merely  to  the 
labour  or  exertion  but  to  the  distress  and  pain  by  which  it  was  accom- 
panied, both  bodily  (the  violent  exercise  of  rowing)  and  mental  (their 
anxiety  and  fear.)  In  rowing,  literally,  in  driving  or  i^'i^opelling,  the 
precise  mode  of  propulsion  being  indicated  by  the  context,  as  well  here 
(and  in  John  6,  19)  as  in  James  3,  4.  2  Peter  2,  7,  where  it  means 
driven  by  the  wind.  The  next  clause  gives  the  reason  of  their  painful 
effort, /(>/'  the  wind  icas  contrary  unto  them,  i.  e.  from  the  west  or  north- 
west. The  fourth  icatch  of  the  niglit,  according  to  the  Roman  division 
of  the  night  into  four  watches  of  three  hours  each,  which  from  the  time 
of  Pomi)ey's  conquest  had  supplanted  the  old  Jewish  division  into  three 
(Judg.  7,  19.  Ps.  90,  6.)  The  time  here  meant  would  be  the  three 
hours  immediately  preceding  sunrise  or  perhaps  the  break  of  day,  say 
from  3  to  6  oVlock  A.  M.  He  comes,  another  instance  of  the  graphic 
present  (see  above),  to  (or  towards)  them,  where  they  were  detained  by 
the  adverse  wind,  and  making  painful  efforts  to  advance.  Walling, 
originally  wall-ing  al)0ut,  or  to  and  fro  (hence  j^^ripatetic),  but  in  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament  simply  walking,  as  opposed  to  other  atti- 
tudes or  motions.  On  the  sea,  not  on  the  shore,  as  some  absurdly  fancy ; 
for  although  the  phrase  sometimes  has  that  meaning  in  both  languages 
(as  when  we  speak  of  a  house  or  a  town  upon  the  sea),  the  other  is  equally 
justified  by  usage  (see  the  Septuagint  version  of  Job,  9,  8),  is  entitled  to 
the  preference,  where  other  things  are  equal,  as  the  primary  or  strict 
sense,  and  is  required  by  the  whole  connection,  by  the  obvious  inten- 
tion to  relate  a  miracle,  and  by  the  fright  of  the  disciples,  which  could 
not  be  owing  to  the  sight  of  a  man  walking  on  the  shore,  even  if  he 
seemed  to  be  walking  in  the  water.  He  would  have,  literally  wished, 
was  willing,  but  with  a  more  attenuated  meaning  than  in  many  other 
cases,  nearly  equivalent  to  saj'ing  that  he  was  about  to  pass  (or  on  the 
point  of  passing)  by  them,  a  modification  perfectly  analogous  to  that 
which  may  be  traced  in  our  auxiliary  verbs. 


i74  MARK  G,  49.  50. 

49.  But  wlien  they  saw  liim  walking  upon  the  sea, 
they  supposed  it  had  been  a  spirit,  and  cried  out. 

And  (or  lut)  they  seeing  him,  not  merely  tchen  they  saw,  but  in  tlie 
very  act  of  seeing  him.  Supposed,  thought,  were  of  opinion,  the  same 
veib  that  is  employed  in  Luke  8.  18  (see  above,  on  4,  25.)  It  had  heen, 
an  old  English  use  of  the  pluperfect  to  express  contingency  (common 
in  the  version  of  Acts.)  The  original  construction  here  is  simply, 
they  supposed  a  phantom  to  he  (present),  or,  supposed  {liini)  to  he  a 
pihantom.  This  last  word  is  a  mere  corruption  ot  the  Greek  word  here 
employed  (^ijhantasma).  both  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  Latin  apipa- 
rition,  i.  e.  an  unreal  appearance  of  a  real  person  whether  dead  or 
living,  commonly  the  former,  but  in  the  present  case  the  latter.  Spii'it 
is  here  used  in  the  specific  sense,  now  attached  to  the  sj'nonymous  term 
ghost,  except  when  applied  to  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity.  Cried 
out  (or  cried  aloud)  for  fear  (Matt.  14,  26.  John  6, 19),  the  verb  used 
elsewhere  to  describe  the  unearthly  cries  of  evil  spirits  or  of  those  whom 
tliey  possessed.  (See  above,  on  1,  23,  and  compare  Luke  4,  33.  8,  28.) 
These  particulars  are  given  both  as  vivid  recollections  of  the  memorable 
scene  (perhaps  preserved  by  Peter)  and  as  indications  that  the  twelve, 
even  after  their  first  mission,  still  remained  in  statu  piiqyillari,  with 
many  crude  and  childish  views  and  even  superstitious  feelings,  which 
were  not  to  be  entirely  subdued  till  afterwards. 

50.  For  tliey  all  saw  him,  and  were  troubled.  And 
immediately  he  talked  with  them,  and  saith  unto  them, 
Be  of  good  cheer,  it  is  I,  be  not  afraid. 

It  was  not  a  passing  glimpse  or  dim  view  of  a  doubtful  object  which 
they  had,  for  all  saio  Mm,  and  by  necessary  implication  knew  him, 
which  is  indeed  the  meaning  constantly  attached  to  some  forms  of  the 
same  Greek  verb.  But  although  the}^  recognized  his  form,  they  thought 
it  an  illusion  or  a  phantasm,  as  the}''  had  left  him  behind  them  and 
were  too  contracted  in  their  views  to  expect  any  manifestation  of  extra- 
ordinaiy  power  beyond  what  they  had  already  witnessed.  They  were 
trouhled,  therefore,  i.  e.  violently  agitated  and  disturbed,  at  this  most 
unexpected  and  inexplicable  sight.  But  although  Jesus  sullered  them 
for  wise  and  holy  reasons  to  be  thus  momentarily  alarmed,  he  did  not 
leave  them  in  this  painful  situation,  but  immediately  (a  circumstance 
here  noted  both  by  Mark  and  Matthew,  14,  27)  talked  with  them,  no 
doubt  in  his  usual  colloquial  tone,  with  which  they  were  now  so  famil- 
iar, and  b}^  which  their  superstitious  fears  would  be  instantly  allayed, 
especially  when  uttering  such  cheering,  reassuring  words  as  those 
which  follow.  Be  of  good  cheer,  and  he  of  good  comfort,  are  the  para- 
phrastic versions  given  in  our  Bible,  of  a  single  tine  Homeric  word 
(Sa/jo-et.  pi.  Sd/jaeiTf);  which  might  also  be  translated  cheer  up,  or  take 
courage.  (See  below,  on  10,  49,  and  compare  Matt.  9,  2.  22.  14,  27. 
Luke  8.  48.  John  10,  33.  Acts  23, 11,  and  28, 15,  where  the  correspond- 
ing noun  appears.)     It  alwaj^s  presupposes  some  alarm  or  apprehen- 


MARK  G,  50.  51.  -175 

siou  previously  expressed  or  necessarily  implied.  It  is  /,  literally  1 
(an,  and  therefore  once  translated  I  am  he  (John  4,  28),  which  is  really 
the  meaning  in  the  other  places  also,  i.  e.  /  am  (he  that  I  appear  to  be, 
or  he  with  whom  you  are  so  well  acquainted.)  The  coincidence  of  this 
familiar  phrase  with  the  divine  name  I  AM  (Ex.  3.  14)  is  extremely 
striking,  even  if  fortuitous.  (See  below,  on  14,  62.)  Be  not  afraid, 
or  frightened,  fear  not,  an  exhortation  which  implies,  as  something  well 
known  to  them  by  experience,  that  his  presence  was  enough  to  banish 
every  danger. 

51.  And  lie  went  np  unto  them  into  the  ship  ;  and 
the  wind  ceased  ;  and  they  were  sore  amazed  in  them- 
selves be3"ond  measure,  and  wondered. 

Mark  passes  over  Peter's  rash  attempt  to  imitate  his  master,  not 
from  tenderness  to  Peter,  "whose  denial  he  records,  and  many  minor 
errors,  no  less  fully  than  the  other  evangelists,  but  in  the  exercise  of 
that  discretion  which  arises  from  the  eclectic  nature  of  all  history,  and 
belongs  to  all  historians,  inspired  and  uninspired,  although  the  reason 
for  insertion  or  omission  may  not  lie  upon  the  surface  of  the  narrative, 
or  be  discoverable  even  by  the  most  acute  analysis.  As  every  thing 
was  not  to  be  and  could  not  be  recorded  (John  21,  25),  there  is  no  more 
need  of  our  explaining  why  one  topic  is  omitted  than  why  another  is 
inserted.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  each  evangelist  was  commissioned 
and  inspired  to  produce  a  complete  history,  not  in  the  sense  of  one  con- 
taining all  the  f;icts  connected  with  the  subject,  but  of  one  containing 
all  the  foots  required  to  produce  a  definite  impression  and  to  answer  a 
specific  purpose,  whether  traceable  by  us  or  not.  Passing  over  this 
remarkable  occurience,  therefore,  which  has  been  preserved  exclusively 
by  ^latthew  (14,  28-33),  jNIark  relates  that  Jesus  went  vp  to  tliem  into 
the  ship,  and  that  the  wind  ceased,  rested,  or  reposed,  the  same  remark- 
able expression  that  is  used  in  his  description  of  the  stilling  of  the 
storm  (see  above,  on  4,  30),  to  which  this  may  be  regarded  as  a  kind  of 
sequel.  The  effect  on  the  disciples  is  described  in  terms  so  strongly 
idiomatic  that  they  c:innot  be  exactly  rendered  into  English,  though 
the  common  version  gives  the  sense  correctl3^  Sore  (the  German  sehr), 
a  Saxon  adverb,  now  entirely  superseded  by  the  Latin  veri/,  and  con- 
fined by  some  philologists  to  evil,  a  mistake  sufficiently  corrected  by 
the  case  before  us  where  "  severely,"  "  grievously,"  are  inappropriate  as 
qnalifving  wonder.  The  corresponding  Greek  word  is  expressive  not 
of  quality  but  quantity,  and  corresponds  to  much,  very  much,  extremely 
and  exceedingly,  in  modern  English.  Beyond  measure  is  a  well-chosen 
substitute  but  not  a  version  of  the  other  phrase,  which  means  out 
of  superfnous  or  superahundant,  an  expression  wholly  foreign  from 
our  idiom,  which  can  only  imitate  it  by  approximation.  It  here  denotes 
a  moral  and  not  merely  phj'sical  excess,  implying  that  they  wondered 
more  than  tliey  had  any  right  or  reason,  as  expressly  stated  in  the 
next  verse. 


176  MARK  6,  52.  53.  54. 

52.  For  tiiey  considered  not  (the  miracle)  of  the  loaves  ; 

for  tlieir  heart  was  hardened. 

The  cause  of  their  excessive  and  unreasonable  wonder  was  their 
not  arguing  from  one  display  of  divine  power  to  another,  and  especially 
in  this  case  their  not  reasoning  with  themselves,  that  he  who  stilled 
the  storm  before  could  rescue  them  from  danger  now,  and  that  he  who 
had  just  created  food  for  thousands  could  at  least  so  far  control  the 
elements  of  nature  as  to  walk  upon  the  water  and  subdue  the  wind. 
The?/  considered  not  (the  miracle  of)  tlie  loaves,  another  correct  par- 
aphrase but  not  an  exact  version  of  the  Greek,  which  means  they  did 
not  understand  adout  the  loaves^  or  as  some  explain  the  preposition, 
at  the  loaves,  i.  e.  at  the  time  and  place  of  that  stupendous  miracle,  or 
after  the  loaves,  i.  e.  even  after  its  performance.  All  these  construc- 
tions give  the  verb  a  stronger  sense  than  that  of  considered,  namely, 
that  of  comprehended,  understood,  which  is  its  meaning  in  4, 12  above, 
and  uniformly  elsewhere.  It  is  construed  absolutely,  or  without  a 
direct  object  in  the  case  first  cited  and  in  many  others.  (See  above, 
4,  12,  and  below,  7,  14.  8, 17.  21.)  The  reason  given  for  this  want  of 
comprehension  is  that  their  heart  was  hardened,  not  in  the  specific  sense 
of  callous  feeling  or  insensible  affection,  but  in  that  of  sluggish  and 
obtuse  intellect,  of  which  the  other  may  be  both  the  cause  and  the 
effect.  (See  above,  on  3,  5,  and  below,  on  8,  17.)  It  is  one  of  the 
most  certain  and  mysterious  facts  in  the  condition  of  Christ's  nearest 
followers  during  their  state  of  pupilage,  that  they  failed  to  comprehend 
what  now  appears  self-evident  or  of  the  most  elementary  simplicity. 
We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  what  now  seems  clear  to  us  might 
well  seem  dark  to  them  without  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  and 
also  that  this  temporary  slowness  and  obtuseness,  which  appears  to 
have  had  some  important  purpose,  is  not  more  marked  than  their  sub- 
sequent intelligence  and  perspicacity. 

53.  And  when  tliey  had  passed  over,  they  came  into 

the  land  of  Gennesaret,  and  drew  to  the  shore. 

Ajid  having  crossed  (the  lake,  from  east  to  west)  they  came  to  (or 
upon)  the  land  of  Gennesaret,  a  small  district  four  miles  long  and  two 
or  three  wide,  on  the  west  side  of  the  sea  of  Galileo,  or  lake  of  Tibe- 
rias, to  which  it  gave  one  of  its  names.  (See  above,  on  v.  14,  and  on 
1,  IG.)  Josephus  describes  this  district  as  the  garden  of  the  whole 
land  and  possessing  a  fertilit}''  and  loveliness  almost  unpai"alleled. 
Capernaum  appears  to  have  been  in  or  vcrj'uear  this  delightful  region, 
so  that  John  (G,  17)  describes  this  same  voyjxge  as  a  voyage  to  Ca- 
pernaum. Dreio  to  the  shore,  or  came  to  anchor  near  it,  or  retaining 
the  passive  form  of  the  original,  were  brought  to  anchor  (or  to  land.) 

54.  And  wlien  tliey  were  come  ont  of  the  ship,  straight- 
way they  knew  him. 

And  they  going  out  (or  as  they  went  out)  from  the  ship^  the  men 


MARK   G,  54.  55.  56.  177 

of  that  place  (Matt.  14,  35),  straightway  Jcnowing  (or  immediately 
recognizing)  liim^  wliom  the}'  had  often  seen  before,  as  tliey  lived  so 
near  his  home  and  the  centre  of  his  operations.  (See  above,  on  1,  21. 
2,  1.)  It  is  an  interesting  thought,  very  often  incidentally  suggested 
in  the  gospels,  that  during  the  three  years  of  our  Saviour's  public 
ministry,  his  person  must  have  become  perfectly  familiar  to  the  great 
mass  of  the  population,  at  least  in  Galilee.  This,  with  the  certainty 
that  he  retains  his  human  body,  and  is  to  appear  in  it  hereafter  upon 
earth  as  he  already  does  in  heaven,  should  preserve  us  from  a  tendency 
to  look  upon  all  sensible  and  bodily  associations  with  the  person  of 
our  Lord  as  superstitious  and  irreverent,  an  error  into  which  some  de- 
vout believers  are  betrayed  by  their  aversion  to  the  opposite  extreme 
of  gross  familiarity  and  levity  in  speaking  of  his  glorified  humanitj-. 

65.  And  ran  tliron2:h  that  whole  reo;ion  round  about, 
and  began  to  carry  about  in  beds  those  that  were  sick, 
where  they  heard  he  was. 

Running  ahout  that  icJiole  surrounding  country  (see  above,  on  1, 
28),  they  hegan,  i.  e.  at  once  without  delay,  and  afterwards  continued, 
see  on  vs.  2.  7.  34,  and  on  1,  45.  2,  23.  4, 1.  5,  17.  20").  V2yo7i  heds  (or 
pallets^  see  above,  on  2,  4)  to  carry  al)out  those  having  (themselves)  ill 
(see  above,  on  1,  32.  2,  17)  icherever  tliey  heard  that  he  was  (literally, 
is,  the  graphic  present)  there.  The  construction  of  the  last  clause  is 
ambiguous,  being  understood  by  some  as  an  example  of  the  Hebrew 
idiom  which  combines  the  relative  pronoun  with  the  adverb  there,  to 
express  our  relative  adverb  where  ;  but  this  would  require  a  pronoun 
in  the  first  place.  Others  refer  the  first  of  the  two  particles  {ottov)  to 
the  place  where  they  heard  of  him,  and  the  last  (eKet)  to  the  place 
where  he  actuall}^  was.  But  most  interpreters  prefer  the  simpler  and 
more  obvious  construction  which  refers  both  particles  to  one  and  the 
same  object,  ' of  whatever  place  they  heard  that  he  was  there.'  The 
running  al)out  and  carrying  altout  may  refer  to  the  same  act,  or  the 
former  to  the  spreading  of  the  news  and  the  latter  to  the  actual  bring- 
ing of  the  sick.  The  meaning  is  not  that  each  one  was  carried  from 
place  to  place  in  search  of  him,  but  that  some  were  carried  one  x^ay, 
some  another,  so  as  to  fall  in  with  him  in  some  part  of  his  circuit. 

56.  And  whithersoever  he  entered,  into  vilh^ges,  or 
cities,  or  country,  they  laid  tlie  sick  in  the  streets,  and 
besought  him  that  they  might  touch  if  it  were  but  the 
border  of  his  garment ;  and  as  many  as  touched  him 
were  made  whole. 

Country,  literally,  fields,  as  in  v.  36  above,  and  in  such  English 
names  as  St.  Giles's  or  St.  Martin's  in  the  Fields,  i.  e.  outside  of  old 
London.  Streets,  or  more  exactly,  marhets  or  marlcet-places,  as  in 
every  other  case  where  it  occurs  (see  below,  on  7,  4.  12,  38),  but  with 

8* 


178  M  A  E  K  G,  56. 

greater  latitude  meaning  than  we  now  give  to  the  English  "vrord.  The 
Greek  one  (dyopa),  according  to  its  etymology  and  usage,  means  a 
place  of  meeting,  especiall}''  for  business,  whether  commercial  or  polit- 
ical. a,nd  therefore  corresponding  both  to  forum  and  marhet.  The 
agora  of  ancient  cities  was  an  open  place  or  square,  sometimes  imme- 
diatel}'  within  the  gates,  but  usually  near  the  centre  of  the  town.  As 
denoting  thoroughfores  or  public  places,  streets  is  therefore  a  substan- 
tially correct  translation.  The  sick,  or  more  exactly,  the  infirm,  a 
S3'non3'mous  expression  with  the  one  in  v.  5,  above.  If  it  icere  but, 
literally,  eroi,  only  (see  above,  on  5,  25.)  This  desire  was  only  super- 
stitious so  far  as  it  ascribed  a  magical  effect  to  the  mere  touch,  or  re- 
garded contact  as  essential  to  the  healing  power  of  the  Saviour's  word. 
It  may  have  been  his  purpose  to  reach  greater  numbers  in  a  given  time 
without  destroying  all  perceptible  connection  between  the  subject  and 
the  worker  of  the  miracle.  (Compare  Acts  5,  15.  19,  12.)  This  is 
not  a  mere  repetition  of  the  statement  in  1,  32-34,  but  designed  to 
show  that  throughout  the  course  as  well  as  at  the  opening  of  our 
Saviour's  ministry,  his  miracles  were  man}^,  those  recorded  in  detail 
being  only  a  few  selected  samples,  and  also  that  his  constant  practice 
was  to  heal  all  who  needed  and  desired  it. 


•♦» 


CHAPTER  YII. 

After  the  manner  of  the  best  historians,  Mark  now  resumes  the  his- 
tory of  Christ's  relations  and  behaviour  to  his  enemies,  especially  the 
great  Pharisaic  party,  taking  up  the  subject  where  he  laid  it  down  for 
the  purpose  of  exemphfying  his  j)eculiar  mode  of  teaching  the  doctrine 
of  his  kingdom  (at  the  close  of  the  third  chapter.)  He  now  records 
a  fresh  attack  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  upon  bis  unceremonial 
practice  with  respect  to  their  tiaditional  exaggeration  and  perversion 
of  the  Levitical  purifications,  including  a  brief  but  interesting  state- 
ment of  their  practice,  and  a  full  report  of  our  Lord's  authoiitative 
teachings  on  the  subject,  both  in  public  and  in  private,  to  his  own  dis- 
ciples (1-23.)  Connected  with  this,  not  only  by  immediate  chronolog- 
ical succession,  but  in  historical  design  and  import,  is  the  narrative  of 
Christ's  one  recorded  visit  to  the  Gentile  world,  with  a  mii-acle  of  dis- 
possession there  performed  upon  a  Gentile  subject,  and  among  the 
most  interesting  in  the  gospels,  both  on  this  account  and  on  account 
of  the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  it  was  performed  (24-30.) 
To  this  Mark  adds  another  miracle,  recorded  onl^^  by  himself,  the 
healing  of  a  dumb  man  in  Decapolis,  innnediately  after  his  return 
from  Phenicia,  and  inserted  here,  not  only  on  account  of  its  immediate 
succession  in  the  order  of  occurrence,  but  because,  like  the  miracle 
before  related,  it  cxemjilifies  a  manner  of  performance,  as  to  outward 
actSj  of  which  we  have  had  previously  no  example  (31-37.) 


MARK  7,  1.  2.  179 

1.  Then  came  together  unto  him  the  Pharisees,  and 
certain  of  the  scribes,  which  came  from  Jerusalem. 

The  immediate  chronological  succession  here  is  not  affirmed,  but 
highl}^  probable  from  the  marked  chronological  character  of  the  whole 
chapter,  both  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  though  the  first  words,  and  there 
assembh  (or  are  gathered)  to  him,  in  themselves  considered,  might  refer 
to  an  entirely  difterent  time  and  occasion.  The  Pharisees^  i.  e.  members 
of  the  well-known  part)"  so  called  (see  above,  on  2,  16.  3,  6.)  Some 
of  the  Scribes,  the  official  guardians  and  expounders  of  the  law.  who 
were  generally  Pharisees  and  often  priests  or  Levites  (see  above,  on  3, 22), 
and  do  not  therefore  necessarily  denote  a  distinct  class  here,  but  may  be 
comprehended  in  the  one  first  named,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  the  Pharisees 
(present,  and  among  them)  certain  of  the  scribes,  &c.'  Hence  Matthew 
names  them  in  the  inverse  order  and  speaks  of  both  as  from  Jerusa- 
lem, i.  e.  belonging  to  the  city  (3,  21.  5.  20),  or  recently  come  down 
from  it,  as  here  expressly  stated.  This  is  only  a  new  instance  of  the 
watch  now  kept  upon  our  Lord  by  the  rulers  of  the  Jews,  as  we  have 
seen  already  (see  above,  on  3,  22),  and  not  a  sign  of  curiosity  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Saviour's  doctrine.  To  him,  in  the  first  clause  may  suggest, 
if  it  does  not  formally  express,  the  idea  of  hostility  {at  him  or  against 
him.) 

2.  And  when  thej  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread 
with  defiled,  that  is  to  say,  with  unwaslien  hands,  they 
found  fault. 

Mark  states  much  more  minutely  than  Matthew  the  immediate  oc- 
casion of  the  followincr  discourse,  to  wit.  the  ceremonial  ne";lio:encc 
which  these  unfi-iendly  lookers-on  observed  in  the  disciples  when  par- 
taking of  their  ordinary  food.  As  nothing  is  said  of  any  joint  repast 
or  common  meal,  this  incident  naturally  brings  to  view  the  constant 
and  intrusive  surveillance  to  which  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  were 
suhjected.  so  that  while  they  sometimes  had  not  time  or  opportunity  to 
take  their  meals  at  all  (see  above,  on  G.  30),  they  seem  to  have 
scarcely  ever  taken  them  in  private,  or  without  the  inspection  both  of 
friends  and  foes.  In  the  present  case,  however,  the  reference  is  not  so 
much  to  any  joint  repast  even  of  the  twelve  among  themselves  as  to 
their  occasional  eating  as  it  were  by  snatches  {seeing  some  of  his  disci- 
jjIcs  eating.)  The  animus  with  which  these  men  attended  is  sufficiently 
betrayed  by  this  pettj-  and  vexatious  watching  of  the  most  innocent 
an<l  private  acts  upon  the  part  of  the  disciples.  Defied  is  too  strong 
and  at  the  same  time  not  the  literal  translation,  which  is  given  in  the 
margin  (common.)  This  expression  is  derived  from  the  ceremonial 
law.  by  which  the  Jews  were  separated  from  the  other  nations,  and 
their  sacred  rites  and  utensils  from  all  things,  even  of  the  same  kind, 
which  had  not  been  thus  sanctified  or  set  apart  to  sacred  uses,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  all  secular  and  common  uses.  Hence  arises  the  an- 
tithesis, at  first  sight  so  surprising,  between  holi/  and  common.    (Com- 


180  MARK  7,  2.  3. 

pare  Acts  10, 14.  15.  Rom.  14, 14.  Heb.  10,  29.)  This  word,  as  here 
applied  to  hands^  means  ceremonially  impure,  i.  e.  not  ceremonially 
purified,  by  formal  washing  before  eating.  It  cannot  be  too  stron,dy 
impressed  upon  the  reader's  mind,  that  there  is  no  allusion  here 
to  personal  cleanliness  or  to  washing  as  a  necessary  means  of  its 
promotion,  but  exclusively  to  ceremonial  purity  and  ceremonial 
washing  in  a  certain  prescribed  form,  without  which  all  the  washing 
in  the  world  would  have  gone  for  nothing  in  the  eyes  of  these  punc- 
tilious ritualists.  That  is  to  say  (literally,  this  is)  with  umcashed  (not 
dirty  but  ceremonially  unpurified)  hands,  is  Mark's  own  explanation 
of  the  singular  term  common.,  for  the  information  of  his  Gentile  readers. 
(See  above,  on  5,  41.)  Bread,  literally,  breads  or  loaves  (see  above, 
on  6,  38),  here  put  for  food  in  general,  as  its  principal  but  not  its  sole 
material  in  the  case  of  the  disciples.     (See  above,  on  3,  20.) 

3.  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they 

wash  (their)  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of 

the  elders. 

Besides  this  explanation  of  the  single  word  common,  IMark  subjoins 
a  statement  of  the  Jewish  practice  in  relation  to  these  washings,  not 
contained  in  Matthew,  thereby  showing  that  he  is  not  a  transcriber  or 
abridger  of  that  gospel,  and  also  that  he  had  in  view  a  different  class 
of  readers,  namely,  Gentiles,  whereas  Matthew  wrote  immediately  for 
Jews,  who  needed  no  such  explanation  of  their  own  religious  usages. 
This  is  one  of  the  clearest  proofs  of  individuality  and  independence 
(not  of  the  Holy  Spirit  but  of  one  another)  in  the  sacred  writers,  as 
evinced  by  the  consistency  of  each  in  pursuing  his  own  plan  and  using 
the  means  necessary  for  its  execution.  The  idea  that  Mark  copied  and 
embellished  Matthew  is  a  perfectly  gratuitous  assumption,  just  as  easy 
to  deny  as  to  aflSrm,  or  rather  easier,  as  being  obviously  a  mere  sub- 
terfuge in  order  to  escape  the  overwhelming  evidence  that  Mark,  as 
well  as  Matthew,  wrote  upon  a  sj'stematic  method  and  to  answer  a 
specific  purpose.  The  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  not  merely  the  great 
ceremonial  part}^  as  such,  but  the  Jews  in  general,  at  the  period  in 
question,  were  infected  with  this  ceremonial  superstition,  though  the 
Sadducees  were  probably  less  rigid  and  punctilious  in  its  observance. 
The  Greek  word  (nvy^f])  qualifying '?f«s/(!  is  rendered  both  in  the  text 
(o/t)  and  margin  (diligently),  either  by  conjecture  from  the  context 
as  requiring  some  such  epithet,  or  fi-om  the  analogy  of  certain  similar 
but  not  kindred  forms  (such  as  nvKyrj,  nvKva,  ttvkucos),  or  on  the  author- 
ity of  the  oldest  versions,  one  of  which  (the  Vulgate  crehro)  has  the 
textual,  and  another  (the  Peshito)  the  marginal  translation.  As  the 
Greek  word,  in  its  secondary  usage,  is  a  measure  of  length,  to  wit, 
the  distance  from  the  elbow  to  the  knuckles,  some  of  the  oldest  com- 
mentators understand  it  here  as  meaning,  to  the  elbotc,  and  some  later 
writers,  to  the  icrist.  But  the  latest  interpreters  reject  this  construc- 
tion of  the  dative  as  a  forced  one,  and  insist  upon  the  primary  and 
strict  sense  of  the  Greek  word,  as  denoting  the  clenched  liaud  or  fist, 


MAEK  7,  3.  4.  181 

especially  as  used  in  boxing.  By  the  singular  phrase,  wasJiing  icitJi 
the  fist,  they  understand  the  rubbing  of  the  fist  in  the  hollow  of  the 
other  hand,  either  as  a  peculiar  cerenion}^  used  on  such  occasions,  or  as 
denoting  regular  and  thorough  washing  in  distinction  from  mere  dip- 
ping or  affusion.  On  any  supposition  the  essential  idea  seems  to  be 
that  of  elaborate  and  formal  washing.  Holding^  holding  fast,  a  very 
strong  term  in  Greek,  the  primary  sense  of  which  has  been  explained 
above  (on  1,  31.  3,  21.  5,  41.  G.  17),  but  which  here  denotes,  not  mere 
reception  or  belief  in  theory,  but  pertinacious  adherence  in  practice. 
Tradition^  any  thing  delivered,  with  specific  reference  to  usages  and 
doctrines,  sometimes  applied  to  immediate  apostolical  teachings  or  com- 
mands (as  in  1  Cor.  11.  2.  2  Th.  2, 15.  3,  6),  but  more  commonly  to 
precepts  handed  down  from  one  generation  to  another,  like  the  oral  or 
unwritten  law  of  the  Jews,  which  they  supposed  to  be  referred  to  in 
Deuteronom}^,  and  were  strongly  disposed  (as  appears  from  the  Tal- 
mud) to  place  higher  than  the  written  word.  To  this  code  belong 
those  additions  to  the  law  by  which  the  Pharisees  had  gradually  bur- 
dened and  corrupted  it  (see  below,  on  v.  9.)  The  elders,  not  the  con- 
temporary rulers  of  the  people  (as  in  8,  31.  11,  27.  14,  43.  53.  15,  1), 
but  the  ancient  fathers  of  the  chosen  race  (as  in  Heb.  11.  2),  to  whom 
they  believed  this  oral  law  to  have  been  given.  (Compare  Matt.  5, 
21.  27.) 

4.  And  (when  they  come)  from  the  market,  except  they 
wash,  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be, 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  (as)  the  washing  of  cups, 
and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  tables. 

This  general  statement  of  the  Jewish  practice  is  now  made  still 
more  specific  by  enumerating  several  familiar  cases  or  occasions  to 
which  it  was  applied.  Market^  the  word  explained  above  (on  6,  56) 
and  here  restricted  in  the  version  to  the  place  where  food  is  sold,  al- 
though it  may  be  taken  in  the  wider  sense  of  market-place  or  forum, 
as  the  place  of  public  meeting.  This  is  altogether  natural  if  we  supply 
coming  (or  ichen  they  come,  as  in  the  EngUsh  Bible),  and  refer  what 
follows  to  the  washing  of  their  own  bodies,  since  the  market  (in  the 
strict  sense)  was  not  the  only  place  where  they  were  liable  to  be  cere- 
monially defiled,  but  such  exposure  existed  in  all  public  places  and 
assemblies,  but  especially  at  funerals,  in  attending  on  the  sick,  &c.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  we  supply  ichat  comes  (or  is  brought  from,  or  belongs 
to  the  market  (see  above,  on  v.  1)  then  the  latter  may  be  taken  in  its 
usual  sense,  and  the  clause  will  refer  to  the  washing  of  the  meat  there 
purchased.  This  last  construction  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  middle 
voice  of  the  ensuing  verb,  which  does  not  necessarily  mean  loash  them- 
seli-es,  but  may  mean  icash  (foi'}  themselves  (the  food  procured  in  mar- 
ket.) Nor  is  it  any  valid  objection  to  this  view,  though  urged  by  emi- 
nent interpreters,  that  such  washing  takes  place  as  a  matter  of  course 
everywhere ;  for  this  is  no  less  true  of  manual  ablution  before  eating 


182  .      MARK  7,  4. 

ill  all  civilized  countries,  <and  especially  among  the  orientals,  not  only- 
new  but  in  the  time  of  Christ,  who  no  doul)t  practised  it  with  his  dis- 
ciples. In  either  case  the  reference  is  not  to  washing  (either  meats  or 
persons)  for  the  sake  of  cleanliness,  but,  as  we  have  already  seen,  for 
ritual  or  ceremonial  purposes,  as  indicated  by  the  word  haj^tize,  which, 
in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  means  neither  on  the  one  hand 
simply  to  irash^  nor  on  the  other  to  immerse^hvit  to  wash  symhoUcallj/. 
or  as  a  religious  rite,  whether  by  immersion  or  affusion  (see  above,  on 
1,  4.)  The  middle  form  here  used  may  either  mean,  they  hathe  (them- 
selves), or  they  symbolically  wash  the  things  brought  from  market, 
before  they  will  partake  of  them.  But  this  was  onl^''  a  small  part  of 
the  restriction  which  they  placed  upon  themselves.  Many  other  (things) 
there  he  (in  modern  English,  are)  which  they  received,  from  others  by 
tradition,  as  suggested  by  the  Greek  verb  which  is  the  correlative  of 
that  from  which  tradition  is  derived.  What  the  fathers  delivered  the 
sons  received.  To  hold,  or  hold  fast,  in  the  strong  sense  explained 
above  (on  v.  3.)  Baptisms,  not  immersions,  which  would  be  absurd, 
if  not  impossible,  in  one  of  the  cases  specified,  but  ceremonial  washings, 
uncommanded  and  traditional  perversions  of  the  legal  ablutions  or  Le- 
vitical  purifications,  as  prescribed  in  Lev.  xii-xv.  and  restricted,  for 
reasons  easily  assignable,  to  certain  states  of  body  representing  the  de- 
filement of  sin,  but  by  the  so-called  oral  law  extended  without  mean- 
ing to  the  most  familiar  acts  of  private  life  and  even  to  the  ordinary 
furniture  of  houses.  There  could  not  be  a  clearer  proof  of  the  absurd 
as  well  as  irreligious  character  of  Pharisaism  than  is  aftbrded  by  this 
pitiful  exaggeration  and  extension  of  an  arbitrary  but  significant  ob- 
servance, divinely  instituted  for  a  temporary  purpose,  to  a  multitude 
of  other  cases  not  included  in  the  legal  requisition,  and  in  which  it 
must  either  be  contemptible  because  unmeaning,  or  pernicious  because 
looked  ui)on  as  having  an  intrinsic  virtue,  magical  or  moral.  Such 
were  the  baptisms  of  the  Pharisees,  and  such  would  those  of  Chi'istians 
be.  if  thus  perverted  or  displaced  fiom  their  true  position  in  the  Chris- 
tian system.  The  general  term  (^baptisms)  is  then  further  specified  by 
several  nouns  in  the  genitive  plural,  denoting  objects  which  they  thus 
supcrslitiously  baptized.  Cups,  drinking  vessels,  a  noun  derived  indi- 
rectly from  the  verb  to  drink.  Pots,  in  Greek  a  word  admittinLr  of 
two  wholly  diflerent  derivations,  one  from  the  verb  (^eco)  to  p)olish, 
accoriling  to  which  it  would  be  descriptive  of  the  suri'ace  or  material, 
and  one  from  the  Latin  sextus  or  se.vtarius,  meaning  the  sixth  part  of 
some  larger  measure  and  nearly''  corresponding  to  an  English  pint,  but 
here  piit  for  any  small  vessel  of  about  that  capacit}'-  or  size,  without 
regard  to  its  precise  form,  jtist  as  we  have  pint-bottles,  pint-mugs,  pint- 
'iowlsj  &c.  If  this  last  be  the  true  interpretation,  as  the  best  modern 
writers  are  agreed,  it  alfords  another  instance  of  >Lark's  Latinisms,  and 
another  confirmation  of  the  old  opinion  that  he  wrote  immediately  for 
Gentile  and  most  piobably  for  Roman  readers,  to  whom  this  whole  de- 
■r  pt;on  wonld  be  highly  interesting  and  instructive,  if  not  absolutely 
ccessary  to  their  comprehension  of  the  more  general  statement  which 
precedes  it.    As  the  first  term  in  this  catalogue  denotes  the  use,  and 


MARK  7,  4.  5.  183 

the  next  the  size,  of  the  domestic  utensils  referred  to,  so  the  third  re- 
lates to  the  material.  Brazen  vessels  is  in  Greek  and  mioht  be  in  Eng- 
lishone  word,  brasses,  cojypers  (see  above,  on  6,  8),  a  term  actually  used 
to  denote  vessels,  although  commonly  of  greater  size  than  those  in- 
tended here,  which  were  probably  small  domestic  utensils,  perhaps  em- 
ployed in  cooking,  and  distinguished  as  metallic  from  tlie  wooden  and 
stone  vessels,  also  used  in  ancient  oriental  households.  Those  of  earth, 
according  to  the  law  (Lev.  15.12),  when  ceremonially  unclean,  were 
to  be  broken.  Tables  (in  the  margin  beds),  i.  e.  couches,  any  thing  on 
which  men  commonly  recline  whether  for  sleep,  or  according  to  the 
later  usage  of  the  ancients  (see  above,  on  2, 15),  to  partake  of  food, 
which  accounts  for  the  word  used  in  the  text  of  our  Bible.  That  these 
couches  were  immersed  in  ever}^  instance  of  ceremonial  washing,  can 
only  be  thought  probable,  or  even  possible,  by  those  who  are  under 
the  necessity  of  holding  that  this  Greek  word  not  onl}^  means  to  dip  or 
plunge  originally,  but  unlike  every  other  word  transferred  to  a  religious 
use,  is  always  used  in  that  exclusive  and  invariable  sense,  without 
modification  or  exception.  To  those  who  have  no  purpose  to  attain  by 
such  a  paradox,  the  place  before  us  will  afford,  if  not  conclusive  evi- 
dence at  least  a  strong  presumption,  that  beds  (to  say  no  more)  might 
be  baptized  without  immersion. 

5.  Then  tlie  Pharisees  and  scribes  asked  liim,  Wbv 

walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to  the  tradition  of  the 

elders,  but  eat  bread  with  unwashen  bands? 

After  this  important  explanation  for  the  benefit  of  Gentile  readers, 
Mark  proceeds,  as  Matthew  (15,  1.  2)  does  without  it,  to  recoid  the 
question  which  these  Pharisaic  baptists  put  to  Christ  as  to  the  prac- 
tice of  his  followers  and  by  necessary  consequence  his  own.  T/ien, 
afterwards,  i.  e.  after  seeing  the  disciples  eat  without  a  previous  cere- 
monial ablution,  which  they  seem  to  have  regarded  as  zealous  Papists 
now  regard  the  entrance  of  a  heretic  into  their  churches  without  genu- 
flexion, crossing,  or  the  anabaptism  of  being  sprinkled  with  holy  water. 
This  particle  (eTreirn)  is  not  found  in  some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts 
and  latest  critical  editions  which  read  simply  (/cat)  and.  lliey  ask,  or 
rather  question,  catechize  him  (see  above  on  5.  9.)  Why,  literally,  for 
(i.  e.  on  account  of)  udiat  (cause  or  reason),  as  in  2,  18  above.  Thy 
disciples,  pupils,  learners,  so  called  because  taught  by  thee,  for  whose 
behaviour  as  to  such  points  thou  art  consequently  answerable.  This 
is  the  obvious  spirit  of  the  question,  though  civility  or  cowardice 
restricted  it  in  form  to  the  disciples,  which  may  also  be  explained  by 
the  fact  that  it  \vas  not  Christ  himself  nor  even  all  of  the  discq^les, 
but  only  some  of  them  (v.  2),  who  happened  to  be  seen  by  these  intru- 
sive censors,  perhaps  simply  appeasing  their  hunger  with  a  morsel  of 
necessary  food,  without  any  formal  meal  at  all,  but  likewise  without 
any  previous  ablution.  The  question,  as  in  all  such  cases  (.see  abovo. 
on  2,  7.  IG.  18.  5.  35.  6,  2.).  though  in  form  a  general  request  for  ex- 
planation, is  in  fact  a  challenge  or  demand  by  what  right  they  thus 


184  MARK  7,  5.  6. 

acted,  and  by  implication  a  denial  that  they  had  any  right  so  to  act  at 
all.  Whether  disciples  has  its  wide  or  narrow  sense  is  a  point  of  no 
exegetical  importance,  as  the  meaning  of  the  question  is  the  same  in 
either  case.  Walk^  or  more  exactly,  walh  about  (see  above  1,  IG.  6, 
48),  a  common  figure  in  all  languages  for  habitual  conduct,  mode  of 
life,  or  concersation^  in  its  older  sense,  involving  the  same  metaphor. 
Wallc  not  may  have  been  the  milder  or  more  covert  form  in  which  they 
clothed  the  idea  of  violation  or  positive  transgression,  as  here  expressed 
by  Matthew  (15,  2),  and  by  implication  claiming  the  authority  of  law 
for  these  traditions  of  the  elders.  But{pn  the  contrary,  so  far  from 
walking  after  or  according  to  this  sacred  rule)  eat  bread  (in  the  strict 
sense,  or  partake  of  food,  see  above,  on  v.  2)  with  unwashen  (or  accord- 
ing to  the  latest  text,  toith  common  or  profane)  hands,  which  reading 
substitutes  the  idiomatic  language  of  v.  2  for  Mark's  own  explanation 
of  it. 

6.  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Well  liatli  Esaias 

prophesied  of  you  hypocrites,  as  it  is  written,  This  people 

honoureth  me  with  (their)  lips,  but  their  heart  is  far  from 

me. 

And  (or  l)ut^  not  expressed  here  in  the  version)  he  ansicering  said 
to  thejn,  that  (on,  not  expressed  in  Enghsh,  see  above,  on  1,  15.  37.40. 
2,  12.  3, 11.  21.  22.  28.  5,  23.  26.  35.  6,  4.  16.  18.  23.  35.)  Well,  not 
truly  or  correctly,  which  would  be  superfluous  as  an  encomium  on  an 
inspired  prophecy,  both  here  and  in  Acts  28,  25,  where  Paul  applies 
the  same  term  to  the  Holy  Ghost  himself;  but  finel}^,  admirably,  or 
appropriately,  exactl}',  in  allusion  to  the  singular  coincidence  between 
Isaiah's  inspired  description  of  his  own  contemporaries  and  the  charac- 
ter and  conduct  of  their  children's  children  in  the  time  of  Christ.  It  is 
not  however  a  mere  accommodation  of  the  passage  to  a  foreign  subject, 
since  Isaiah's  words  are  not  confined  to  those  whom  they  immediately 
described ;  but  this  very  fact,  that  a  description  could  be  so  fi-amed  as 
to  represent  with  equal  fidelity  originals  who  lived  so  many  centuries 
apart,  is  itself  a  proof  of  inspiration  and  a  ground  for  the  applause  and 
admiration  here  expressed.  Esaias  is  the  Greek  form  of  Isaiah,  like 
Elias  for  Elijah  in  6,  15.  As  Isaiah  itself  is  a  modification  of  the 
Hebrew  form  (Jeshaiah,  Jeshaiahu),  it  would  have  been  better  to  em- 
ploy either  it  or  the  Greek  Esaias  in  the  version  of  both  Testaments, 
the  variation  of  the  name  confusing  uninstructed  readers.  This  is  still 
more  true  of  Jesus,  the  Greek  form  of  Joshua,  when  used  to  designate 
the  Son  of  j\Ian  (as  in  Acts  7, 45.  Heb.  4,  8.)  Uath  Isaiah  prophesied^ 
or  rather,  did  Isaiali  propjhesy ,  of  old,  so  long  ago,  the  interval  being  a 
material  idea,  which  the  perfect  tense  does  not  convey,  at  least  so  well, 
because  it  properly  denotes  an  action  still  continued  to  the  present 
time.  Of  {\.  e.  about,  concerning)  you  hypocrites,  should  be  connected 
with  the  adverb,  loell.  The  meaning  is  not  that  the  Jews  of  Christ's 
time  were  the  formal  and  direct  theme  of  the  prophecy,  which  would 
not  have  been  spoken  of  as  so  remarkable,  but  rather  that  in  speaking 


MARK  7,  6.  7.  185 

of  his  own  conteraporaries,  he  drew  an  admirable  picture  of  their  chil- 
dren in  the  time  of  Christ.  But  although  this  does  not  require  us  to 
interpret  the  original  passage  as  a  specific  and  exclusive  prophecy  re- 
specting Christ's  contemporaries,  it  does  require  us  to  interpret  it 
so  as  to  include  them,  which  can  only  be  secured  by  making  it  descrip- 
tive of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  not  at  one  time  merely,  but  throughout 
the  period  of  the  old  dispensation,  an  assumption  perfectly  confirmed 
by  history.  Hypocrites^  a  Greek  noun  originally  meaning  one  who 
answers  or  responds,  with  particular  allusion  to  oracular  responses, 
explanations,  and  advices;  then  one  who  answers  in  a  colloquy  or  con- 
versation, with  particular  allusion  to  dramatic  dialogue ;  then  one  who 
acts  upon  the  stage,  an  actor ;  then  metaphorically  one  who  acts  a  bor- 
rowed part ;  and  lastly,  a  dissembler,  a  deceiver,  one  whose  words  and 
actions  do  not  indicate  his  real  thoughts  and  feelings.  This  last  sense 
of  the  noun,  the  only  one  which  it  retains  in  modern  languages,  is  not 
found  in  the  classics ;  but  the  primitive  or  corresponding  verb  meant 
to  dissemble  at  least  as  early  as  Demosthenes  and  Polybius.  It  is 
doubtful,  however,  whether  the  noun,  even  in  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament,  has  always  the  strong  sense  which  later  usage  puts  upon 
it,  and  which  sometimes  does  not  seem  entirely  appropriate,  as  in  Luke 
12,  56,  and  here,  in  both  which  places  the  connection  agrees  better 
with  the  older  sense  of  one  who  acts  a  part,  who  wears  a  mask,  who  is 
contented  with  an  outside  show,  including  not  deliberate  deceivers 
merely,  but  the  self-deceived,  or  those  who  really  mistake  the  outward 
for  the  inward,  the  apparent  for  the  real.  As  it  is  icritten,  or  more  ex- 
actly, has  heen  written^  the  perfect  tense  being  here  in  its  appropriate 
place  as  meaning,  not  merely  that  it  was  once  Written  b}'  Isaiah,  but 
that  it  had  ever  since  been  written,  i.  e.  had  remained  on  record,  as  it 
still  does  in  the  extant  writings  of  Isaiah  (29,  13.)  The  quotation  is  a 
free  one  from  the  Septuagint  version,  the  variations  being  unimportant 
to  the  Saviour's  purpose.  The  first  two  clauses,  which  Matthew  gives 
in  full,  Mark  contracts  into  one,  or  rather  he  begins  with  the  second. 
Is  far  from  me,  in  Hebrew,  it  removes  far  fron  me;  but  this  variation 
is  found  also  in  the  Septuagint. 

7.  Ilowbeit,  in  vain  do  tliey  worsliip  me,  teaching  (for) 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men. 

But  (or  and),  the  usual  connective  (Se),  in  vai?i  they  worsliip  me,  a 
thought  implied  though  not  expressed  in  the  original,  and  therefore  not 
improperly  supplied  by  the  Seventy  and  sanctioned  by  our  Lord  or  his  bio- 
graphers. The  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  words  is.  and  their  fear- 
ing me  (i.  e.  their  worship)  is  (or  has  hecome)  a  precept  of  men.  a  thing 
tauglit.  This  taken  by  itself  might  seem  to  mean  that  they  served  God 
merely  in  obedience  to  human  authority,  and  would  then  imply  no  cen 
sure  on  the  i)ersons  thus  commanding,  but  oidy  on  the  motives  of  those 
by  whom  they  were  obeyed.  But  in  our  Saviour's  application  of  the  pas- 
sage to  the  hypocrites  of  his  day,  he  has  reference  particularly  to  reli- 
gious teachers,  as  corrupting  the  law  by  their  unauthorized  additions. 


186  M  A  R  K  7,  8,  9. 

8.  For  laying  aside  the  commandment  of  God,  ye  hold 
the  tradition  of  men,  (as)  tlie  washing  of  pots  and  cnps ; 
and  many  otlier  such  like  things  ya  do. 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason  for  applying  to  Christ's  hearers  the 
description  of  their  fathers  by  Isaiah.  (This  is  no  less  true  of  you  than 
of  them)/(>?'  laying  aside,  literally,  leaving,  letting  go  (see  above,  on  2. 
5.  3,  28.  4,  12,  where  it  is  applied  to  sin  and  means  to  leave  unpunished), 
either  in  the  sense  of  relaxing  its  requirements  to  themselves  and  others, 
or  in  that  of  abandoning  and  disregarding  it,  not  absolutely  but  in  com- 
parison with  their  traditions.  The  commandment  of  God  may  mean 
the  aggregate  of  his  commandments,  usually  called  his  laic,  or  more 
strictly,  the  particular  commandment  set  aside  in  any  given  case,  for 
instance  tiie  one  specified  in  v.  10.  Hold,  the  tradition,  in  the  sense 
before  explained  (on  v.  3.)  But  instead  of  elders,  as  in  that  place.  Ave 
have  here  of  men,  in  strong  antithesis  to  God,  suggesting  both  the  sin  and 
folly  of  their  conduct  in  postponing  the  express  recorded  law  of  God  to 
the  vague,  dubious,  unauthorized  tradition  of  mere  men.  This  sweep- 
ing charge  is  then  made  more  specific  by  referring  to  the  case  which 
had  occasioned  it,  and  citing  as  a  memorable  instance  of  their  vain  and 
impious  substitutions  for  divine  commands,  their  oa2Jtisms  of  pots  and 
cups,  all  which  words  have  already  been  explained  (on  v.  4.)  But  lest 
he  should  be  understood  as  limiting  his  censure  to  this  one  case,  he  re- 
news his  general  charge  by  adding,  and  many  such  like  {ov  nearly  alike) 
things  ye  do. 

9.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Full  well  ye  reject  the 
commandment  of  God,  that  ye  may  keep  your  own  tra- 
dition. 

A7id  h,e  said  to  them,  a  favourite  formula  of  this  evangelist,  not 
found  in  Matthew,  who  also  omits  the  preceding  verse  and  gives  the 
one  before  ns  an  interrogative  form,  retorting  their  own  question  (Matt. 
15,  3.)  Full  icell,  precisely  the  same  word  that  is  employed  above  in 
V.  6.  and  gratuitously  varied  here  in  the  translation,  so  as  to  obscure 
the  allusion  in  the  one  place  to  the  other.      Well  did  Isaiah  prophesy 

of  you and  icell  do  ye  fulfil  the  prophecy.     The  meaning  of 

the  adverb  in  Ijoth  cases  is  identical;  but  it  is  applied  seriously  in  one 
and  ironically  in  the  other.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  nobly  did  tho  prophet 
do  his  part  when  he  described  you  thus,  and  nobly  you  do  yours  when 
you  reject  &c.'  There  is  peculiar  fitness  in  the  verb  here  used,  which, 
as  we  have  already  seen  (on  0,  20),  originall}'  means  to  displace,  which 
applies  exactly  to  their  impious  postponement  of  God's  law  to  man's 
tradition,  while  the  secondary  meaning  of  contemptuous  rejection  is  no 
less  appropriate  in  its  applicatit)n  both  to  things  and  persons,  i.  e.  to 
the  law  or  precept  and  to  him  who  gave  it.  Keep,  in  the  last  clause 
is  a  different  expression  from  the  one  in  vs.  3.  4.  8.  the  main  idea  there 
being  that  of  liolding  fast,  or  obstinate  adhesion,  but  in  this  case  that 
oi  watching,  guarding  or  observing.     This  is  also  tUe  old  English  sense 


MARK  7,  9.  10.  187 

of  Tceep^  as  used  in  our  translation,  though  in  modern  parlance  it  is  al- 
most limited  to  that  of  retaining  or  preserving,  which  is  only  a  collat- 
eral deduction  from  the  same  original  idea. 

10.  For  Moses  said,  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother ; 

and.  Whoso   curseth  father  or  motlier,  let  him  die  the 

death. 

Not  only  in  this  one  case  of  ceremonial  baptisms  did  they  thus  re- 
ject and  nullify  God's  precept,  but  in  others,  of  ftir  more  importance, 
because  relating  not  to  rites  but  moral  duties,  not  to  the  abuse  of  posi- 
tive and  temporary  institutions,  but  to  the  neglect  of  the  most  tender 
natural  relations.  Of  this  he  gives  a  single  instance,  but  a  most  affect- 
ing one,  which  utters  volames  as  to  the  spirit  and  the  tendency  of 
Pharisaic  superstition.  The  sum  and  substance  of  it  is  that  the  ob- 
servance of  their  vain  tradition  was  considered  and  enforced  by  them 
as  more  obligatory  than  the  sacred  duty  which  the  child  owes  to  the 
parent,  by  the  law  of  nature  and  the  law  of  God.  For  Moses  said^  i.  e. 
God  commanded  through  him  (^latt.  15,  4.)  In  these  two  parallels 
we  have  the  clearest  recognition  of  the  code  or  system  quoted  in  the 
next  clause  as  the  work  of  Moses  and  the  law  of  God.  He  then  quotes 
the  first  or  preceptive  clause  of  the  fifth  commandment  (Ex.  20, 12. 
Deut.  5, 16),  leaving  out  the  promise  or  inducement  as  irrelevant  to  his 
present  purpose,  which  relates  exclusively  to  the  precept,  but  substi- 
tuting for  it  the  severe  law  inflicting  capital  punishment  on  those  who 
carried  filial  disobedience  to  the  length  of  cursing  or  reviling,  literally, 
speaking  evil  of,  the  opposite,  both  in  etj'uiology  and  usage,  of  the  verb 
employed  above  in  G.  41,  and  there  explained.  Though  here  in  strong 
antithesis  to  honour,  it  does  not  directly  mean  to  dishonour,  but  de- 
notes specifically  one  of  the  easiest  and  worst  ways  of  doing  so,  to  wit, 
by  abusive  and  insulting  language.  Whoso  curseth,  literally,  tlie  {one 
or  the  man)  cursing  (or  rei^iling)  father  or  mother^  an  indefinite  form 
used  by  both  evangelists,  and  diilering  alike  from  the  original  and  Sep- 
tuagint  version,  both  which  have  the  pronoun  (thy)  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding clause  where  both  evangelists  retain  it.  This  exact  agreement 
in  so  slight  a  difference  is  not  to  be  explained  by  the  hypothesis  of  ser- 
vile imitation  or  transcription  on  the  part  of  either,  but  by  the  suppo- 
sition that  these  were  the  very  words  (or  their  exact  equivalents) 
which  Jesus  uttered,  and  which  therefore  must  have  some  siirnificance, 
however  faint  the  shade  of  meaning  which  they  may  express.  That 
they  do  express  one  must  be  felt  by  every  reader  even  of  a  literal  trans- 
lation, though  it  is  not  easy  to  subject  it  to  analysis  or  definition.  Per- 
haps it  may  be  simply  stated  thus,  that  the  definite  expression  in  the 
other  clause  {thy  father  and  thy  mother)  and  in  the  original  of  this 
clause  {his  father  and  his  mother)  is  designed  to  individualize,  before 
the  mind  of  every  hearer  or  reader  of  the  law,  the  very  pair  to  whom 
be  owes  allegiance,  while  the  vaguer  phrase  here  used  {father  or  mother) 
rather  calls  up  the  idea  of  parents  in  general  as  a  class  or  species,  but 
so  as  rather  to  enhance  than  to  extenuate  their  claims  upon  their  chil- 


188  MAKK  7,  10.  11. 

dren,  by  presenting  those  claims  in  the  abstract  and  the  aggregate.  As 
if  he  had  said,  '  he  who  can  dishonour  by  his  curses  such  a  sacred  ob- 
ject as  a  fatlier  or  a  mother.'  Let  him  die  the  death,  an  English  imi- 
tation of  the  Hebrew  idiom  which  combines  a  finite  tense  and  an  infi- 
nitive of  the  same  verb  to  express  intensity,  repetition,  certainty,  or 
any  other  accessory  notion  not  belonging  to  the  essential  import  of  the 
verb  itself.  In  the  original  passage  our  translators  have  expressed  the 
qualifying  adjunct  (that  of  certainty)  without  copying  the  form  {shall 
surely  l)e  yut  to  death),  while  here  the  form  is  rendered  prominent  by  a 
pretty  close  approximation  to  the  Hebrew  in  the  combination  of  the 
cognate  verb  and  noun,  a  modification  of  the  idiom  not  unknown  in 
other  languages.  The  imitation  is  indeed  much  closer  than  in  Greek, 
where  the  verb  is  not  the  ordinary  verb  to  dle^hMt  one  which  originally 
means  to  end  ov  finish,  often  joined  with  life,  and  then  elliptically  used 
without  it  to  express  the  same  idea  (that  of  ending  life  or  d3'ing.)  The 
strict  translation  of  the  whole  phrase  therefore  would  be,  let  him  end 
with  death,  the  meaning  both  of  it  and  of  the  Hebrew,  let  him  surely 
die. 

11.  But  ye  say,  If  a  man  sliall  say  to  liis  fatlier  or 
mother,  (It  is)  Corban,  that  is  to  say,  a  gift,  by  whatsoever 
thou  mightest  be  profited  by  me,  (he  shall  be  free.) 

The  antithesis  is  still  kept  up  between  what  God  said  and  what 
they  said  (see  above,  on  v.  8),  both  being  put  into  the  form  of  a  com- 
mand or  law.  Having  given  that  of  God,  with  its  tremendous  sanction 
in  the  verse  preceding,  he  now  contrasts  with  it  that  of  the  traditional 
or  oral  lawyers.  But  (on  the  other  hand,  on  your  part)  ye  say,  not 
in  so  many  words,  perhaps  not  formally  at  all,  but  practically  by  what 
you  encourag'e  and  allow,  both  in  yourselves  and  others.  If  a  man 
say,  may  possibly  have  been  a  real  formula  of  casuistical  theology 
among  the  Jews,  as  there  is  something  not  unlike  it  in  the  Talmud. 
At  all  events  it  pleased  our  Lord  to  put  the  spirit  of  their  conduct  and 
of  the  system  upon  which  it  rested  into  this  technical  and  formal 
shape,  in  order  more  completely  to  expose  its  wickedness  and  foil}'. 
Shall  say  is  too  categorical  and  positive  a  version  of  the  aorist  sub- 
junctive which  denotes  a  hypothetical  contingency,  or  something  which 
may  happen  or  may  not,  2h  his  father  or  mother,  literally,  the  father 
or  the  mother,  the  pronoun  being  still  omitted,  as  in  v.  10,  but  the 
article  inserted.  Corban,  a  Hebrew  word  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  and  immediately  translated  into  Greek  by  Mark  ac- 
cording to  his  custom  (see  above,  on  5,41),  that  is  to  say  (literally, 
which  is)  a  gift,  a  word  denoting  gifts  in  general  but  specifically  used 
in  Homeric  and  Hellenistic  Greek  to  mean  a  votive  ollcring  or  a  gift 
to  God.  In  this  restricted  sense  it  answers  to  the  Hebrew  corban, 
which  according  to  its  etymology  means  any  thing  brought  near  or 
presented,  but  in  usage  what  is  thus  brought  near  to  God.  Jn  this 
sense,  it  is  applied  like  the  corresponding  verb  (hikrib)  to  all  the  of- 
ferings of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  animal  and  vegetable,  bloody  and  blood- 


MARK  7,  11.  12.  13.  189 


less.  (See  Lev.  2, 1.4. 12. 13.  7, 13.  9,  7. 15.)  In  the  later  Hebrew 
and  Chaldee,  it  was  applied  still  more  extensively  to  all  relig:ious  offer- 
ings, even  those  not  sacrificial,  but  not  to  these  exclusively  as  some 
allege.  This  one  Avord  seems  to  have  been  the  prescribed  form  in  such 
cases,  so  that  by  simply  saying  "  Corban,"  a  man  might  devote  the  whole 
or  any  part  of  his  possessions  to  religious  uses.  i.  e.  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  temple  service  by  the  purchase  of  victims  or  the  sustentation  of 
the  priests  and  Levites.  Whatever  tlwu  (the  parent  thus  addressed) 
mightest  he  profited  Tjy  me  (i.  e.  whatever  assistance  or  advantage 
thou  mightest  have  derived  from  me)  is  Corban  or  devoted  to  religious 
uses  like  a  sacrificial  victim.  That  such  things  were  permitted  and 
applauded  may  be  proved  by  certain  dicta  of  the  Talmud,  and  espe- 
cially by  a  famous  dispute  between  Rabbi  Eliezer  and  his  brethren,  in 
which  the  very  act  here  described  was  vindicated  by  the  latter.  It  is 
commonly  agreed  that  there  is  here  an  instance  of  the  figure  called 
aposiopesis,  in  which  the  apodosis  or  logical  conclusion  of  the  sentence 
is  suppressed  or  left  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader.  Such  constructions, 
whether  reckoned  beauties  or  defects,  are  common  in  the  best  classical 
writers.  The  thought  to  be  supplied  here  is,  '  he  does  no  wrong,'  '  he 
is  at  liberty  to  do  so,'  or  the  like.  As  if  he  had  said,  you  know  full 
well  what  your  response  would  be  to  such  an  offer,  and  you  ought  to 
know  its  practical  effect,  recorded  in  the  following  verse. 

12.  And  ye  suffer  liim  no  more  to  do  onglit  for  his 
father  or  his  mother; 

That  effect  is,  that  ye  no  longer  suffer  him  (even  if  he  would),  or 
suffer  him  no  longer  (if  he  would  not),  probably  the  latter,  as  the  verb 
(the  same  with  that  in  v.  8.)  even  with  the  negative  would  hardly  be 
employed  to  denote  active  prohibition,  but  rather  signifies  their  culpable 
connivance  at  such  base  neglect.  '  If  he  wishes  to  do  nothing  more  for 
them,  you  suffer  it.'     For  them^  for  their  benefit,  support,  assistance. 

13.  Milking  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  tlirough 
3^onr  tradition,  which  ye  have  delivered;  and  many  such 
like  things  do  ye. 

Having  given  this  revolting  instance  of  the  practical  result  to  which 
their  tiealmcnt  of  God's  precepts  tended,  he  returns  to  the  generic 
charge  which  it  was  stated  to  illustrate.  Making  void^  invalidating, 
nullifying,  a  verb  not  used  in  classic  Greek,  but  formed  directly  from  an 
adjective  fan.iliarly  apiilied  by  Plato  and  Thucydides  to  laws,  and  rep- 
resenting them  (according  to  its  etymology)  as  destitute  of  force,  in- 
valid, null  and  void.  This  was  the  actual  effect,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  purpose,  of  their  ceremonial  and  traditional  morality,  by  which 
they  practically  nullified  the  word  of  God,  i.  e.  his  precept  or  his  reve- 
lation. The  next  clause  cannot  be  exactly  rendered  into  English  for 
want  of  a  verb  corresponding  to  tradition.     The  form  of  the  original 


190  M  A  R  K  7,  13.  14.  15.  16. 

may  be  made  intelligible  to  an  English  reader  by  the  awkward  imita- 
tion, your  deliverance  (in  the  Scotch  sense)  which  j-ou  have  delivered, 
or  your  handing  down  which  you  have  handed  down.  The  address  may 
be  either  to  the  whole  race  as  represented  by  his  hearers,  or  to  them- 
selves as  delivering  and  enforcing  these  traditions  by  authority.  Once 
more  he  comes  back  to  the  general  charge,  reminding  them  that  these 
were  only  samples  of  their  impious  and  lawless  practice. 

11.  And  wlien  lie  liad  called  all  the  people  (niito  liini), 
he  said  unto  them,  Hearken  unto  me  every  one  (of  you), 
and  understand. 

Thus  far  he  had  addressed  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves, 
but  now  invokes  a  larger  audience.  And  calling  to  all  the  croicd,  i.  e. 
addressing  them,  or  calling  the  crowd  to  (him),  as  in  3,  13.  23.  G,  7, 
which  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  change  of  place,  but  merelj'  a  re- 
quest for  their  particular  attention,  as  expressed  in  the  last  clause. 
Still  less  is  it  implied  that  the  multitude  at  large  had  not  heard  what 
is  said  in  the  preceding  context.  All  that  is  meant  is  that,  after  having 
answered  the  demand  of  his  opponents  in  the  presence  of  the  people,  he 
now  calls  the  attention  of  the  latter  to  the  same  great  subject,  as  one 
of  practical  and  universal  interest,  because  relating  to  the  very  principle 
of  all  morality.  The  peoiJle^  literally,  the  crowd,  or  promiscuous  assem- 
blage (see  above,  on  2.  4.  3,  9.  4, 1.  5,  27.  6,  33)  as  distinguished  from  the 
prominent  and  leading  men,  and  all  the  croicd,  as  distinguished  from  a 
part  or  from  a  few.  Hear  me,  listen  to  me,  not  an  unmeaning  form  but 
a  distinct  intimation  that  he  had  something  of  importance  to  communi- 
cate (see  above,  on  4,  3.  9.)  And  understand^  give  intelligent  attention, 
not  merely  to  my  words  but  to  their  meaning.  Ecery  one  of  you.,  in 
Greek  simply,  al\  another  intimation  that  the  subject  was  of  universal 
interest.  This  double  "  all "  has  been  preserved  by  Mark  alone,  al- 
though the  rest  of  the  verse  is  given,  almost  word  for  word,  by  Mat- 
thew (15,  10.) 

15.  16.  There  is  nothing  from  -svithout  a  man,  that  en- 
tering into  him,  can  delile  him ;  but  tlie  things  which 
come  out  of  him,  those  are  they  that  delile  the  man.  If 
any  man  have  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

Having  exposed  the  folly  of  the  prevalent  ceremonial  superstition  as 
to  uncommanded  baptisms  or  religious  washings,  and  its  wickedness  in 
setting  aside  moral  obligations,  the  Saviour  now  pursues  the  same  course 
in  a  still  more  public  manner  with  respect  to  the  most  prevalent  and 
favouiite  of  all  merely  ritual  distinctions,  that  of  clean  and  unclean 
meats,  which  had  then  become,  and  still  continues,  the  chief  bar  to  social 
intercourse  between  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  very  object  of  the  law 
upon  this  subject  (as  recorded  in  Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.)  was  to  sepa- 
rate the  chosen  race  from  every  other  by  restrictions  on  their  food 


MARK  1,  15.  IC.  191 

which  should  render  it  impossible  for  them  to  live  together,  or  to  inter- 
change the  ordinary  courtesies  of  life,  without  a  constant  violation,  upon 
one  side,  of  rehgious  duty.  This  effect  had  been  abundantly  secured  for 
ages  in  the  practice  of  all  conscientious  Jews,  but  with  tlie  necxjssary 
incidental  evil  of  a  constant  disposition,even  on  the  part  of  such,  to  mis- 
take a  positive  and  temporar}^  regulation  for  a  perpetual  invariable  law, 
and  to  regard  the  forbidden  meats  as  having  an  intrinsic  efficacy  to  de- 
file, not  only  ceremonially  but  morally.  In  opposition  to  this  ground- 
less and  pernicious  error,  Christ  propounds  the  simple  truth,  but  in  a 
form  adapted  to  arrest  the  popular  attention  and  impress  itself  upon  the 
memory  by  something  of  antithesis  and  even  paradox.  A  man,  lite- 
rail}^,  the  m<in^  which  may  either  be  the  Greek  equivalent  to  our  generic 
"  man  "  without  the  article,  or  be  taken  strictly  as  denoting  the  particu- 
lar man  eating  or  receiving  food  in  any  supposed  case.  Entering  into 
Mm,  i.  e.  into  the  mouth  (Matt.  15,  11)  as  food  or  nourishment,  which  can 
(is  able,  a  distinct  verb,  not  a  mere  auxiliar}^)  dejile  him,  literally.  maJce 
him  common  or  frofane,  a  verb  derived  from  the  Greek  adjective  em- 
ployed above  (v.  2)  and  there  explained.  But  (the  other  branch  of  the 
antithesis)  the  (things)  coming  out  of  him.  proceeding  from  him  (the 
exact  correlative  or  opposite,  in  form  as  well  as  sense,  of  the  preceding 
verb),  i.  e.  from  his  mouth  (Matt.  15, 11)  in  language,  or  more  generally 
in  his  conduct,  as  the  expression  of  his  thoughts  and  character,  lliese 
are  the  (things)  de-filing  (or  profaning,  desecrating)  the  man.  Tlie 
paradoxical  character  of  this  important  statement  arises  from  its 
solemnly  affirming  in  a  moral  sense,  what  was  not  true  if  taken  in  a 
ceremonial  sense,  and  therefore  might  at  first  sight  seem,  and  did  no 
doubt  to  many  seem,  directly  contradictory  to  an  express  divine  com- 
mandment. But  this  only  deepened  the  impression  of  the  true  sense 
when  discovered  or  revealed,  as  in  all  the  paradoxes  which  may  be  said 
to  form  a  striking  characteristic  of  our  Saviour's  teachings,  but  which 
no  mere  man,  at  least  no  uninspired  man,  can  imitate  without  the  risk 
of  doing  far  more  harm  than  good,  and  of  adding  one  more  instance  to 
the  many  which  illustrate  and  confirm  the  fact  that  "  fools  rush  in 
where  angels  fear  to  tread."  What  our  Saviour  here  denies  is  not  that 
the  partaking  of  forbidden  meats  was  ceremonially  defiling,  i.  e.  sub- 
jected those  who  did  so  to  certain  ceremonial  disabilities  and  rendered 
necessary  certain  rites  of  purification ;  for  all  this  was  explicitly  re- 
vealed in  scripture  and  embodied  in  the  practice  of  the  Jewisli  church 
from  the  very  beginning  of  the  ceremonial  dispensation,  whicli  was  not 
yet  at  an  end.  Nor  does  he  here  deny  that  by  transgressing  this  part 
of  the  law  a  man  incurred  the  moral  guilt  of  disobedience,  which  wtnild 
have  opened  a  wide  door  to  lawless  and  ungodly  license.  It  is  not  the 
authority  or  obligation  of  the  precept  that  he  calls  in  question,  but  its 
ground  and  purpose,  as  usually  apprehended  by  the  people  and  ex- 
pounded by  their  spiritual  leaders.  Certain  meats  had  been  pro- 
hibited by  Closes  under  the  divine  direction,  for  a  temporary  end  of 
great  importance  but  ere  long  to  be  forever  superseded,  i.  e.  to  secure 
the  separation  of  the  Jews  from  other  races  till  the  change  of  dispensa- 
tions, and  in  the  mean  time  to  symbolize  the  difference  between  heathen- 


192  MARK  7,  16.  17.  18. 

ish  corruptions  and  the  holiness  which  ought  to  have  adorned  the 
church  or  chosen  people.  But  by  gradual  departure  from  this  clearly 
revealed  purpose  of  the  legal  prohibitions  now  in  question,  they  had 
come  to  look  upon  the  unclean  meats  nfiper  se  morally  defiling,  and  by 
necessary  consequence,  upon  the  strict  use  of  the  clean  meats  as  intrin- 
sically purifying,  or  at  least  meritorious  in  the  sight  of  God.  This  is 
the  error  here  refuted  or  condemned,  and  not  obedience  to  the  dietetic 
laws  of  Moses  while  the  S3'stem  was  still  binding,  upon  which  these 
w^ords  of  Christ  have  neither  a  remote  nor  an  immediate  bearing,  as 
some  eminent  interpreters  imagine,  and  as  many  of  his  hearers  no  doubt 
thought  at  that  time,  notwithstanding  the  admonitory  warning  against 
inattention  and  misapprehension,  which  we  learn  from  i\laik,  though 
not  from  JNIatthew,  that  he  uttered  upon  this  as  on  so  many  other  simi- 
lar occasions  (see  above,  on  4,  9.  23.)  If  any  {one^  not  man)  have  can 
to  hear  (i.  e.  the  faculty  of  hearing  given  to  him  for  the  very  purpose). 
let  him  hear  (let  him  use  it  upon  this  occasion  when,  if  ever,  he  will 
find  it  advantageous  so  to  do.) 

17.  And  wlien  lie  was  entered  into  the  house  from  the 
j)eople,  his  disciples  asked  him  concerning  the  parable. 

When  he  entered  into  a  (not  the)  house,  or  more  general!}',  into 
house  (i.  e.  within  doors),  as  the  same  phrase  elsewhere  means  home  or 
at  home^when  the  reference  is  to  his  return  from  other  places  to  Caper- 
naum (see  above,  on  2,  1.  3, 19.)  From  (away  fiom)  the  i^eojjle,  lite- 
rally, the  crowd  or  multitude  (see  above,  on  v.  14.)  Uis  discijAes,  prob- 
ably but  not  necessarily  the  twelve,  since  others  were  admitted  ito  his 
private  presence,  and  are  elsewhere  spoken  of  as  joining  with  the  twelve 
in  precisely  such  inquiries  (see  above,  on  4,  10.)  Asked  him,  questioned 
him,  in  a  particular  and  earnest  manner  (see  above,  on  v.  5  and  on  5, 
9.)  About  (concerning)  the  i^arable,  or  according  to  the  latest  critics, 
asked  him  the  ixirahle,  the  same  construction  as  in  4,  10.  but  only 
differing  in  form  from  the  common  text  and  version.  Mark  omits  a 
brief  but  interesting  dialogue  preserved  by  Matthew  (15.  12-14).  as  to 
the  impression  made  upon  the  Pharisees  \>j  what  our  Lord  had  said  in 
public,  and  the  ultimate  effect  of  their  erroneous  teachings  on  them- 
selves and  others.  Another  circumstance  preserved  by  iNlatthew  (15, 
15)  is  that  Peter  was  the  spokesman  upon  this  occasion,  as  on  many 
others  even  when  he  is  not  named  in  any  of  the  gospels,  which  makes 
Mark's  omission  here  of  less  importance.  Parable,  the  word  used  in 
both  accounts,  has  here  its  vaguest  sense  of  something  enigmatical,  not 
obvious  in  meaning.  One  interpreter  supposes  the  disciples  to  have 
been  led,  by  their  habit  of  inquiring  about  parables,  to  use  the  word 
for  any  thing  requiring  explanation. 

18.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Are  ye  so  without  under- 
standing also  ?  Do  ye  not  perceive,  that  whatsoever  thing 
from  without  entereth  into  the  man,  (it)  cannot  defile  him '{ 


MARK  7,  18.  19.  193 

Although  this  is  not  a  harsh  reproof,  it  certainly  involves  a  censure 
on  the  followers  of  Christ  for  their  continued  share  in  the  prevailing 
error  which  he  had  just  refuted  and  denounced.  This  implies  that 
what  they  failed  to  understand  was  not  a  raj'stery  (see  above,  on  4, 
21)  requiring  special  revelation  to  disclose  it,  ignorance  of  which  could 
not  have  been  condemned  as  culpable,  but  something  clear  already,  if  not 
iVom  the  nature  of  the  case  from  the  word  of  God.  And  he  sai/s  to 
t/iein  (in  answer  to  their  question  or  request  for  explanation.)  So  (thus, 
i.  e,  like  the  rest)  eee>i  ye  (or  ye  also^  my  most  favoured  and  enlight- 
ened followers).  Without  understanding^  in  Greek  a  single  woi-<l  which 
might  be  rendered  unintelligent  (the  opposite  in  form  as  well  as  sense 
of  that  employed  in  Matt.  11,25.  Acts  13,7.  1  Cor.  1,19.)  It  is  ap- 
phed  by  Paul  (Rom.  1,21.  31)  to  the  irrationality  of  sin,  but  also  in 
the  game  epistle  (lU,  19)  to  the  ignorance  and  unmtelligence  of  heathen 
or  barbarians.  iJo  ye  not  perceive^  a  verb  applied  by  Homer  and  Xeno- 
phon  to  bodily  vision,  but  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  to  in- 
tellectual perception  only,  sometimes  with  the  accessory  notion  of  at- 
tention (see  below,  on  13,  14,  and  compare  2  Tim.  2,  7)  which  may  also 
be  included  here  (and  in  8,  17  below.)  'Are  you  not  sufficiently  at- 
tentive to  perceive  &c.  ?  '  This  again  implies  that  what  they  miscon- 
ceived was  no  mysterious  secret  but  an  obvious  and  patent  truth,  which 
they  could  not  have  attentively  considered  without  justly  apprehending 
it.  Whataoecer  entereth,  literally,  every  {thing)  entering  into  the  man 
(here  correctly  rendered  with  the  article)  cannot  (is  not  capable  or 
able,  see  above,  on  v.  15,  to)  dejile  him  (make  him  common  or  unholy 
in  a  moral  sense.)  This  was  almost  self-evident,  and  yet  the  people 
had  lost  sight  of  it,  and  even  the  disciples  did  not  see  it  clearly. 

19.  Because  it  enteretli  not  into  liis  heart,  but  into  the 
bell}^,  and  goeth  out  into  the  draught,  purging  all  meats. 

The  reason  of  this  impossibilit}'-  is  obvious,  to  wit,  that  food  does 
not  affect  the  mind  or  soul  but  only  the  corporeal  organs,  which  are  not 
moral  agents  or  susceptible  of  moral  changes.  Heart,  not  the  seat  of 
the  affections  merely,  nor  the  mind  as  0{)pQsed  to  the  affections,  but  the 
whole  soul  as  distinguished  from  the  body  (see  above,  on  2,6.  4,15. 
6,  52.)  The  helly^  not  the  entire  body,  nor  the  abdomen  exclusively, 
but  the  whole  interior  cavity  (the  Greek  word  originally  meaning  hol- 
low)^ in  which  are  lodged  the  organs  of  digestion  here  especially  re- 
ferred to,  namely,  the  stomach  and  intestines.  The  last  clause  carries 
out  the  idea,  that  the  food  never  goes  beyond  the  body  or  reaches  the 
mind  or  soul,  by  suggesting  that  the  whole  course  of  the  aliment,  re- 
ceived through  the  mouth  into  the  stomach  and  intestines,  can  be 
traced  as  all  exclusively  corporeal,  from  its  entrance  to  its  exit.  To 
this  is  added  at  the  close  of  the  whole  sentence  a  suggestion  that  even 
physically  food  is  not  defiling,  since  that  part  of  the  process  of  diges- 
tion which  is  most  offensive  is  in  fact  a  purifying  one,  because  it  carries 
off  the  impure  portion  of  the  food,  leaving  only  what  is  nutritive  and 
healthful.  How  absurd  then  to  imagine  that  the  moral  and  spiritual 
9 


194  MARK  7,  19.  20.  21.  22. 

state  of  man  can  be  affected  by  the  food  which  he  consumes.  Draiiglit^ 
drain,  sink,  or  privy,  a  word  belonging  to  the  later  Greek.  All  meats^ 
or  varieties  of  food  received  into  the  mouth  and  stomach. 

20.  And  he  said,  That  which  cometh  out  of  the  man, 
that  defileth  the  man. 

But  Tie  said,  Mark's  favourite  transition  from  one  topic  or  one  por- 
tion of  it  to  another,  here  completing  the  antithesis,  by  adding  to  the 
negative  account  of  what  does  not  detile  a  man  the  positive  description 
of  what  does.  27iat,  {on)  excluded  by  our  idiom  as  in  many  other 
cases  (see  above,  on  v.  G.)  The  {thing)  coining  out  of  the  mnn^  i.  e. 
proceeding  from  him  in  a  moral  sense.  The  double  out  (e'/c)  prefixed 
in  Greek  both  to  verb  and  noun  adds  strength  to  the  antithesis  or  con- 
trast (see  above,  on  1,  27.)  lliat  (eKelvo,  an  emphatic  pronoun  tanta- 
mount to  not  this,  not  what  I  have  just  described)  profanes  the  man 
(makes  him  common  or  unholy  in  the  proper  sense.)  'Food,  when  it 
enters,  enters  not  into  the  soul  but  the  stomach  and  the  bowels,  and 
even  when  it  is  finally  excluded,  rather  cleanses  than  defiles ;  but  there 
is  something,  in  another  sense  proceeding  from  man,  which  does  really 
defile  him.'     What  it  is,  he  teaches  in  the  next  verse. 

21.  For  from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  men,  23roceed 
evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  fornications,  murders — 

Out  of  tlie  heart,  the  soul,  as  the  seat  both  of  the  intellect  and  the 
afi'ections  (see  above,  on  v.  19.)  Proceed,  come  out  or  forth,  the  same 
verb  that  is  used  in  the  preceding  verse.  Eml  thoughts  is  in  Greek 
doubly  definite,  the  article  being  written  twice,  tlie  thoughts,  the  eiil 
{ones.)  (For  examples  of  the  same  construction,  which  is  foreign  from 
our  idiom,  see  above,  on  1,  26,  and  again  below,  on  v.  23.)  'Thoughts, 
not  mere  ideas  or  incoherent  notions,  but  reasonings,  calculations, 
plans,  or  purposes,  implying  action  both  of  mind  and  heart  in  the  re- 
stricted sense.  Of  these  he  now  enumerates  particular  examples,  in 
the  plural  number,  either  to  denote  the  multitude  of  sinful  acts  in- 
cluded under  each  description  or  the  variety  of  forms  and  circumstan- 
ces under  which  each  sin  may  be  committed.  Adulteries,  violations  of 
the  marriage  \ow,  fornications,  violations  of  chastity  by  unmarried 
persons ;  both  being  breaches  of  the  seventh  commandment  (Ex.  20, 
14)  as  interpreted  by  Christ  himself  (Matt.  5,  28.)  Murders,  unlawful 
and  malicious  homicides,  placed  first  by  Matthew  (15, 19.)  These 
crimes,  interpreted  with  proper  latitude,  include  the  worst  offences 
against  human  justice  and  the  order  of  society. 

22.  Thefts,  covetousness,  wickedness,  deceit,  lascivi- 
ousness,  an  evil  eye,  blasphemy,  pride,  foolislmess — 

Thefts,  including  all  surreptitious  violations  of  the  property  of 
others,  and  according  to  later  Greek  usage  even  those  of  a  more  vio- 


MARK  7,  22.  195 

lent  and  open  nature,  highway-robbers  being  still  called  IclejMs  (es- 
sentially the  same  word  here  employed)  in  modern  Greece.  The  op- 
posite change  has  taken  place  in  English,  thieves  and  roMers  being 
never  now  confounded  as  they  often  are  in  our  Bible  (see  below,  on 
14,48.  15,27,  and  compare  Luke  10,  30.)  Covetous7uss,  a  very  inade- 
quate translation  both  in  form  and  substance,  as  the  Greek  noun  is 
plural,  like  all  those  before  and  the  one  after  it,  and  has  a  much 
greater  latitude  of  meaning  than  its  representative  in  English,  though 
included  in  it.  The  Greek  word,  according  to  its  etymology  and  pri- 
mary usage,  means  the  possession  of  more  than  others  ;  then  the  desire 
to  possess  more,  with  its  usual  concomitants  of  grasping  greediness, 
ambitious  arrogance,  and  fraudulent  contrivance ;  in  all  which  senses 
it  is  used  by  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  and  Plato.  In  the  place  of  this 
word  jMatthew  (15,  19)  substitutes  false  testimonies^  both  (or  their 
equivalents  in  Aramaic)  having  probably  been  uttered  by  our  Saviour. 
Wickedness  in  Greek  is  also  plural  and  more  definite  in  meaning,  being 
not  a  comprehensive  term  including  all  the  rest,  but  a  specific  one  de- 
noting evil  dispositions,  and  might  therefore  be  translated  by  the  unu- 
sual but  expressive  and  appropriate  form,  malignities.  The  remaining 
words  are  in  the  singular,  which  seems  to  be  an  accidental  or  euphonic 
change,  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  sins  described  to  require 
or  account  for  such  a  difierence.  Deceit^  fraud,  including  all  forms  of 
dishonesty  not  comprehended  under  theft.  Lasciviousness,  in  classic 
Greek  a  word  denoting  all  excess  and  extravagance,  applied  by  Is^eus  and 
Demosthenes  to  arrogance  and  insolence,  but  b}'^  the  later  writers  lim- 
ited to  libidinous  excesses  or  unbridled  lust.  An  evil  eye,  the  visible 
expression  being  put  for  the  inward  disposition  or  affection,  which 
would  seem  from  a  comparison  of  Matt.  20, 15,  to  be  envy.  Blas2)hem'i/, 
another  outward  manifestation  used  to  represent  an  inward  disposition, 
namely  proud  and  spiteful  anger,  that  which  finds  expression  in  revil- 
ing and  abusive  words  not  only  against  man  but  God  (see  above,  on  2, 
7.  3,  28.)  This  is  also  given,  but  in  the  plural  form,  by  Matthew  (15, 
19),  who  omits  the  four  particulars  immediately  preceding  and  the  two 
which  follow.  Pride,  in  Greek  a  more  specific  term  originally  mean- 
ing the  appearance  of  one  object  above  others,  then  conspicuous  and 
marked  superiority  ;  but  applied  to  persons  almost  always  in  the  bad 
sense  of  haughtiness  or  arrogance  towards  God  and  man.  (Compare 
the  cognate  adjective  in  Luke  1,  51.  and  biavola  there  with  duiXoyia/jioi 
here.)  Foolishness,  senselessness,  absurdit}^,  an  attribute  of  all  sin  as 
essentially  irrational,  but  specially  apparent  in  the  character  and  con- 
duct of  some  sinners.  The  primitive  adjective  or  noun  (("Kpijcou)  is 
common  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  but  the  derivative  {d(ppo- 
avvT])  occurs  only  here  and  in  one  of  Paul's  epistles,  where  he  thrice 
applies  it  to  himself  (2  Cor.  11,1.17.21),  as  he  does  the  other  four 
times  in  the  same  epistle  (11, 16.  12.  0.  11.)  The  allegation  that  Mark 
adds  to  jNlatthew's  catalogue  a  number  of  irrelevant  particulars,  is  per- 
fectly gratuitous,  as  no  rule  can  be  laid  down  for  determining  how 
many  might  be  given,  and  our  Saviour  may  have  uttered  a  still  greater 
number,  out  of  which  one  evangelist  selected  more,  the  other  less,  as 
best  adapted  to  his  own  immediate  purpose. 


196  MARK  7,  23.  24 


^ 


23.  All  these  evil  tilings  corae  from  ^vitliin  and  defile 

tlie  man. 

This  long  enumeration  of  particulars  is  followed  by  a  summing  up 
or  repetition  of  the  general  statement  which  they  were  intended  to 
exemplify.  All  these  evils  from  icitJiui  come  forth  and  desecrate  the 
man  (or  render  him  unholy)  not  ceremonially  but  moralh\  Here 
again,  as  in  v.  21,  the  peculiar  Greek  construction  and  idiomatic  repe- 
tition of  the  article  imparts  a  force  and  at  the  same  time  a  precision  to 
the  sentence  which  can  only  be  imperfectly  retained  in  English  even 
b}''  a  bald  translation.  All  these,  the  evil,  i.  e.  all  these  things,  these 
evil  things.  Evil,  the  word  combined  with  eye  in  the  preceding  verse, 
and  meaning  here  as  there,  not  only  sinful  in  the  general,  but  wicked, 
spiteful,  or  malicious  in  particular. 

21.  And  from  thence  he  arose,  and  went  into  the  bor- 
ders of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  entered  into  a  house,  and 
would  have  no  man  know  (it) ;  but  he  could  not  be  hid. 

Thence,  i.  e.  from  the  place  where  the  foregoing  words  were  uttered. 
But  where  was  this  ?  The  last  particular  place  mentioned  was  Gen- 
nesaret  (H,  53).  but  followed  by  a  notice  of  his  visiting  ''that  whole 
surrounding  country"  (55),  and  entering  into  "villages,  cities,  and 
fields"  (56.)  This  may  seem  to  cut  off  the  connection  and  prevent  our 
ascertaining  the  locality  referred  to  here.  But  as  thence  implies  a 
definite  place  previously  mentioned,  and  as  the  general  statement  in  6, 
53-56  is  incidentally  and  parenthetically  introduced,  and  relates  not  so 
much  to  what  occurred  at  any  one  time  as  to  the  general  and  constant 
practice,  as  appears  from  the  use  of  the  imperfect  tense,  it  is  still  most 
probable  that  the  reference  is  here  to  the  land  (or  district)  of  Genne- 
saret,  or  to  the  neighbouring  city  of  Capernaum  (see  above,  on  6,  53, 
and  compare  John  6.  17.)  Arising,  standing  up,  an  idiomatic  phrase  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  and  often 
denoting  nothing  more  than  what  we  mean  by  starting,  setting  out, 
putting  one's  self  in  motion,  especially  though  not  exclusively  in  refer- 
ence to  journeys.  Went^  or  more  exactly  icent  aicaij,  i.  e.  withdrew, 
retreated  (Matt.  15,  21),  from  the  malice  of  liis  enemies,  as  some  sup- 
pose, or  as  others,  fiom  the  crowd  and  bustle  even  of  his  friends  and  fol- 
lowers. It  is  probable,  however,  that  a  higher  and  more  important 
motive  led  to  this  retreat,  to  wit,  the  purpose  to  evince  by  one  act  of 
Ids  public  life  that,  though  his  personal  ministry  was  to  the  Jews  (see 
below,  on  v.  27,  and  compare  Matt.  15.  24.  Kom.  15,  8),  his  saving 
benefits  were  also  for  the  Gentiles.  It  is  important  to  remember  that 
tliese  movements  were  not  made  at  random  or  fortuitously  brought 
about,  as  infidel  interpreters  delight  to  represent,  and  some  of  their 
believing  admirers  do  not  venture  to  den^'-,  but  deliberately  ordered  in 
accordance  with  a  definite  design,  the  realitv  of  which  is  not  aftected  bv 
our  being  able  or  unable  ever3'\vhere  to  trace  it  in  the  histor}^  I/ito 
(not  merely  to  or  towards^  which  would  be  otherwise  expressed)  the 


MARK  7,  24.  25.  26.  197 


horders^  a  compounded  form  of  the  word  used  twice  in  v.  31  below,  and 
not  applied  like  it  to  all  contained  within  the  bounds,  but  to  the  bounds 
themselves,  in  which  specific  sense  it  is  employed  b}^  Xenophon,  Thu- 
cydides,  and  Plato,  who  speaks  of  the  bounds  (or  limits)  of  the  philoso- 
pher and  politician.  The  Greek  word  is  properly  an  adjective,  and 
means  bordering  or  frontier  parts  (iMatt.  15,  21.)  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
the  two  great  seaports  of  Phenicia,  put  for  the  whole  country,  which 
apart  from  them  had  no  importance.  (See  above,  on  3.  8.)  The  whole 
phrase  does  not  mean  the  region  between  Tj^re  and  Sidon,  but  the 
boundary  or  frontier  between  Galilee  and  Phenicia.  Would  and  could ^ 
as  in  so  many  other  cases,  are  not  mere  auxiliary  tenses,  but  distinct 
and  independent  verbs  ;  Tie  tcisJied  and  lie  was  ahle.  The  construction 
he  icas  willing  to  JcnoiD  no  one  (i.  e.  to  make  no  acquaintance  or  receive 
no  visit),  though  grammatically  possible,  is  not  so  natural  or  obvious  as 
the  common  one,  he  wished  no  one  to  Icnoio  (him),  or  to  Jcnoio  (it),  1.  e. 
his  arrival  or  his  presence.  To  de  hid,  or  lie  concealed,  the  Greek  verb 
being  active  in  its  form. 

25.  For  a  (certain)  woman,  whose  yonng  daugliter  had 

an  unclean  spirit,  heard  of  him,  and  came  and  tell  at  his 

feet. 

The  reason  that  he  could  not  be  concealed  is  now  recorded.  Fo7'  a 
woman,  having  heard  of  him,  i.  e.  of  his  arrival  now,  or  of  his  miracles 
before ;  but  even  in  the  latter  case,  the  other  fact  must  be  supplied. 
Whose  little  daughter  (an  affectionate  diminutive,  used  also  in  5,  23, 
above)  liad  an  imcleansinrit,  in  the  sense  repeatedly  explained  already. 
(See  above,  on  1,  23.  3.  11.  30.  5,  2.)  It  appears  from  this  case,  that 
these  demoniacal  possessions  were  not  confined  to  Jews,  or  to  any  age 
or  sex.  (See  below,  on  9,  17.)  Coming  (into  the  house  where  he  was) 
and  falling  at  his  feet,  the  full  phrase  which  occurs  in  a  contracted 
form  above  (3, 11.  5,  33),  the  act  denoting  not  religious  adoration  but 
importunate  entreaty. 

26.  Tlie  woman  was  a  Greek,  a  Syrophenician  by  na- 
tion ;  and  slie  besonght  him  that  he  would  cast  forth  the 
devil  out  of  her  daughter. 

The  remarkable  circumstance  in  this  case,  which  in  part  accounts 
for  its  insertion  in  the  historj',  is  that  the  woman  here  described  was  a 
Gentile,  not  only  by  residence  but  by  extraction.  A  Greek,  not  in  the 
strict  sense,  but  in  the  wider  one  arising  from  the  Macedonian  con- 
quests, which  diffused  the  Greek  civilization  through  the  wliole  of 
western  Asia,  so  that  in  the  later  Jewish  dialect,  Greek  was  substan- 
tially synonymous  with  Gentile,  even  where  the  language  was  not 
actually  spoken,  as  it  may  have  been  in  this  case.  A  Syrophenician, 
so  called  either  in  distinction  from  the  Lihyophenicians  in  Africa,  or 
because  Phenicia,  as  well  as  Palestine,  belonged  to  the  great  Pvoman 
province  of  Syria.     (See  above,  on  G,  14.)     Both  countries  also  had 


108  .         MARK  7,  26.  27. 

been  peopled  by  the  sons  of  Canaan,  so  that  this  woman  was  at  once  a 
Greek,  a  Syrophenician.  and  a  Canaanite  (Matt.  15,  22.)  By  nation^ 
race,  extraction,  birth.,  (Compare  Acts  4,  30.  13,  20.  18,  2.  24.  Piiil.  3, 
5.)  Ash'd,  in  the  secondaiy  sense  of  legged,  and  therefore  followed  by 
t/iaf,  and  not  by  wlietJier.  (See  above,  on  1,  30,  and  compare  Luke  4, 
38.)  Cast  forth  the  devil,  or  exjpel  the  demon.  (See  above,  on  1,  34. 
39.  3, 15.  22.  0, 13.) 

27.  But  Jesus  said  unto  her,  Let  the  children  first  be 

filled  :  for  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's  bread,  and 

to  cast  (it)  unto  the  dogs. 

Another  singularity  of  this  case,  which  suggests  a  farther  reason 
for  its  being  so  minutely  stated,  is  our  Lord's  refusal  to  perform  the 
miracle,  of  which  this  is  the  first  and  only  instance  upon  record.  Even 
here,  however,  it  was  not  an  absolute  and  permanent  refusal,  but  a 
relative  and  temporary  one,  designed  to  answer  an  important  purpose, 
both  in  its  occurrence  and  in  the  historical  account  of  it.  Let,  or 
more  emphatically,  let  alone  (implying  an  untimely  interference),  suffer 
or  permit,  the  same  verb  which  we  have  already  had  in  different  appli- 
cations. (See  above,  on  1,  18.  34.  2.  5.  4,  36.  7.  8. 12.)  Filled,  sated, 
satisfied,  the  same  verb  as  in  0.  42,  and  there  explained.  Meet,  i.  e. 
suitable,  becoming,  handsome,  which  approaches  nearest  to  the  strict 
sense  of  the  Greek  word,  n^nxieXy,  fair  or  heautiful,  though  commonly 
applied  in  Scripture  to  excellence  or  beauty  of  a  moral  kind.  To  tale, 
not  pleonastic,  as  it  often  is  in  vulgar  English,  but  to  taTce  aicay  from 
them  and  bestow  it  upon  others.  Tlie  children'' s  Ijread,  the  bread 
intended  and  provided  for  them,  and  when  actually  given  belonging  to 
them.  Dogs,  a  diminutive  supposed  by  some  to  be  contemptuous,  like 
wlielps  or  i^^^PP^^^-'  t»ut  by  others  an  expression  of  affectionate  famil- 
iarity, like  little  daughter  (a  Greek  word  of  the  same  form)  in  v.  25. 
This  question  is  connected  Avith  another,  as  to  the  sense  in  which  dogs  are 
mentioned  here  at  all,  whether  simply  in  allusion  to  the  wild  gregarious 
oriental  dog,  regarded  as  an  impure  and  ferocious  beast,  or  to  the  classi- 
cal and  modern  European  notion  of  the  dog  as  a  domesticated  animal, 
the  humble  companion  and  faithful  friend  of  man.  The  objection  to 
the  former  explanation  is  not  only  its  revolting  harshness,  and  the  ease 
with  which  the  same  idea  might  have  been  expressed  in  a  less  unusual 
manner,  but  the  obvious  relation  here  supposed  between  the  children 
and  the  dogs,  as  at  and  under  the  same  table,  and  belonging  as  it  were 
to  the  same  household.  John,  it  is  true,  uses  dogs  in  the  offensive 
sense  first  mentioned;  but  his  language  is  "without  are  dogs"  (Rev. 
22, 15),  apparently  referring  to  the  homeless  dogs  which  prowl  through 
the  streets  of  eastern  cities  (compare  Ps.  22,  20.  5P,  0.  jMatt.  7,  0. 
Phil.  3,  2)  ;  but  here  the  dogs  are  represented  as  within,  and  fed  be- 
neath their  master's  table.  The  beauty  of  our  Saviour's  figure  would 
be  therefore  marred  by  understanding  what  he  says  of  savage  animals, 
without  relation  or  attachment  to  mankind.  Cast,  throw  away,  a  term 
implying  waste  of  the  material  as  well  as  some  contempt  of  the  recipi- 


MARK  7,  27.  28.  29.  199 

ent.  Like  most  of  our  Lord's  parables  or  illustrations  from  analogy, 
this  exquisite  similitude  is  drawn  from  the  most  familiar  habits  of 
domestic  life,  and  still  comes  home  to  the  experience  of  thousands. 

28.  And  she  answered  and  said  nnto  liim,  Yes,  Lord ; 
yet  the  dogs  nnder  the  table  eat  of  the  children's  crumbs. 

There  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  admirable  answer, 
which  might  almost  be  applauded  for  its  wit,  if  Christ  himself  had  not 
ascribed  to  it  a  higher  merit,  as  an  evidence  of  signal  faith,  combined 
with  a  humility  no  less  remarkable.  There  is,  however,  some  dispute 
as  to  its  form,  particularly  that  of  the  first  clause,  which  somS  explain 
as  a  denial  of  what  he  had  said,  and  others  more  correctly  as  a  partial 
affirmation  or  assent,  but  followed  by  a  partial  contradiction,  as  in  our 
translation.  The  best  philological  interpreters  are  now  agreed  that  yet 
is  not  a  correct  version  of  the  Greek  phrase  (koi  yap),  which  can 
only  mean  agreeably  to  usage,  for  or  for  even.  The  meaning  of  the 
answer  then  will  be,  'Yes,  Lord  (or  Sir),  it  is  true  that  it  would  not 
be  becoming  to  deprive  the  children  of  their  food,  in  order  to  supply 
the  dogs  ;  for  these  are  not  to  eat  the  children's  bread,  but  the  crumbs 
(or  fragments)  falling  from  the  table.'  The  whole  is  tlierefore  an  assent 
to  what  our  Lord  had  said,  including  his  description  of  the  Gentiles 
(Matt.  15.  24)  as  the  dogs  beneath  the  table,  and  a  thankful  consent  to 
occupy  that  place  and  to  partake  of  that  inferior  provision.  (?/' (liter- 
all}^ /row)  the  crumbs  is  not  here  a  partitive  expression,  as  it  sometimes 
is,  but  simply  indicates  the  source  from  which  the  nourishment  is 
drawn.  The  idea  suggested  by  an  ancient  and  adopted  by  a  modern 
writer,  that  the.  word  translated  criunbs  here  means  the  pieces  of  bread 
which  the  ancients  used  as  napkins,  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  refine- 
ment, but  a  needless  variation  from  the  usage  of  the  word,  which  is  a 
regular  diminutive  of  one  itself  denoting  a  crumb,  bit,  or  morsel  espe- 
cially of  bread.  Gldldren  is  also  a  diminutive,  the  same  with  that  in 
5,  39-41,  and  entirely  distinct  in  form,  though  not  in  meaning,  from 
the  one  here  used  in  the  preceding  verse. 

29.  And  he  said  nnto  her,  For  this  saving,  go  thy  way ; 
tlie  devil  is  gone  ont  of  thy  daughter. 

For  (the  sake  of,  on  account  of)  tlih  icord  (saying,  speech,  or  an- 
swer), go  thy  way  (i.  e.  in  modern  English,  go  away,  depart),  perhaps 
to  be  taken  as  an  abbreviation  of  the  full  phrase,  go  in  j)^ace  (or  into 
jjeace)  employed  above  in  5,  34,  and  there  explained.  (See  also  on  1.  44. 
2, 11.  5,  19.)  The  merit  of  her  answer  was  its  faith  (Matt.  15,  28),  to 
which  her  whole  request  was  granted  instantaneousl}^,  the  demon  hav- 
ing actually  left  her  child  when  these  gracious  words  were  uttered. 
Now  as  this  faith  was  the  gift  of  Christ  himself,  there  could  neither  be 
surprise  on  his  part,  nor  legal  merit  upon  hers,  but  onl}'-  a  benignant 
recognition  of  his  own  work  in  her  heart,  which  his  discouraging  recep- 
tion of  her  prayer  at  first  had  served  both  to  strengthen  and  illustrate, 


200  MARK  7,  29.  30.  31. 

and  was  therefore  no  more  unkind  than  the  similar  procei^ses  con- 
tinually goino;  on  in  true  believers,  though  of  course  unlaiown  to  the 
experience  of  those  skeptical  interpreters,  who  eithei-  sneer  at  this  as 
cruel  treatment  of  a  distressed  mother,  or  assume  a  real  change  of  pur- 
pose wrought  in  Christ  by  her  persistent  importunity. 

30.  And  when  she  was  come  to  her  house,  she  found 
the  devil  gone  out,  and  her  daughter  hiid  upon  the  bed. 

This  is  merely  a  distinct  historical  statement  of  the  fact  that  she 
found  the  Saviour's  declaration  verified  on  reaching  home,  the  demon 
(actually)  gone  out  and  the  daughter  laid  vpoii  the  hed^  or  rather 
throicn  there  (as  the  Greek  word  strictly  means)  by  the  fiend  at  his 
departure,  so  that  her  mother  found  her  just  as  he  had  left  her.  This 
removes  all  appearance  of  departure  from  the  general  rule  previously 
laid  down  (see  above,  on  1,  31.  5,  43),  and  derived  by  induction  from 
the  history  at  large,  tliat  in  cases  of  miraculous  restoration  there  Avas 
no  protracted  convalescence,  but  an  instantaneous  return  to  ordinary 
occupations.  Had  this  been  a  case  of  mere  corporeal  healing  or  resus- 
citation, the  effect  would  probably  have  been  the  same  as  in  the  cases 
just  referred  to.  But  the  miracle  was  here  one  of  dispo.ssession,  and 
this  was  no  doubt  sudden  and  complete ;  for  the  bodily  exhaustion 
which  ensued  was  not  a  remnant  of  the  previous  disease,  or  even  a 
transition  from  an  abnormal  to  a  normal  state,  but  rather  a  decisive 
indication  that  the  latter  had  been  reinstated,  as  the  preternatural  ex- 
citement which  accompanied  possession,  and  was  usually  symptomatic 
of  it  (see  above,  on  5,  5),  would  not  have  allowed  her  to  lie  quietly 
upon  her  bed,  the  sight  of  which  recumbent  posture  must  have  satis- 
fied the  mother  instantly,  not  that  her  daughter  was  recovering,  but 
that  she  was  recovered,  from  her  fearful  preternatural  disorder.  In 
recording  this  most  interesting  miracle,  Mark  treats  it  as  an  instance 
of  extraordinary  faith,  without  making  prominent  its  bearing  on  our 
Lord's  relation  to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  which  belongs  therefore  rather 
to  the  exposition  of  the  parallel  account  in  Matthew  (15,  21—28.) 

31.  And  again,  departing  from  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  lie  came  unto  the  sea  of  Galilee,  through  the  midst 
of  the  coasts  of  Decapolis. 

Again,  implying  not  a  previous  departure  from  the  same  place,  but 
referring  simply  to  his  previous  arrival,  as  we  speak  familiarly  of  going 
to  a  place  and  back  again.  Departing,  literally  going  out,  the  opposite 
oncoming  in  (v.  24.)  Coasts,  not  in  the  restricted  modern  sense  of 
shores  or  sea-coasts,  but  in  the  wide  old  Enclish  sense  of  bounds  or 
borders,  sometimes  including  all  between  them.  (See  above,  on  v.  24.) 
Tyre  and.  Sidon.  or  as  the  Vatican  and  several  other  imcial  copies  read, 
through  Sidon,  thus  describing  him  as  going  northward  from  Tyre 
through  Sidon,  a  circuitous  but  not  impossible  direction  in  returning  to 
Decapolis,  and  one  which  may  have  been  suggested  by  prudential  mo- 


MARK  7,  31.  32.  201 


tives.  But  the  readinp;,  though  adopted  by  the  Latest  critics,  is  by  no 
means  certainly  the  true  one.  For  (or  along ^  Matt.  15,  29)  tlie  sea 
of  Galilee  (Tiberias,  or  Gennesaret,  see  above,  on  1,  16.  2, 13.  3,  7. 
4,  1.  39.  5,  1.  21.  6,  47),  through  tlie  midst  (along  the  middle)  of  tlte 
coasts  (the  same  word  as  before,  and  in  the  same  sense  of  boundaries 
or  bounded  territories,  regions,  districts)  of  Decapolis  (or  Ten  Towns), 
a  name  which  has  occurred  and  been  explained  already.  (See  above, 
on  5,  20.) 

32.  And  they  bring  unto  liini  one  that  was  deaf  and 
had  an  impediment  in  his  speech  ;  and  tliey  beseech  him 
to  jMit  liis  hand  npon  him. 

While  sitting  or  reposing  in  the  hills  or  highlands  of  this  region 
(Matt.  15,  29),  he  performs  a  miracle  recorded  only  in  the  book  belore 
us,  although  Matthew  spcaUs  of  his  return  from  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  the 
lake,  and  of  his  performing  man}^  miracles,  among  the  rest  making 
dumb  (people)  speak,  of  which  we  have  here  a  single  instance.  They, 
indefinitely,  meaning  certain  persons  not  distinguished  or  described 
more  fully,  but,  as  the  connection  naturally  indicates,  no  doubt  the 
people  of  the  region  first  named,  i.  e.  the  Decapolis,  where  he  had  al- 
read}'  wrought  a  signal  miracle  of  dispossession  (see  above,  on  5,  20.) 
From  a  part  of  it,  the  district  of  the  Gadarcnes  (5,  1)  our  Lord  had 
been  requested  by  the  people  to  withdraw  (5, 17)  ;  but  even  they  might 
now  be  willing  to  experience  his  healing  ])Ower,  much  more  tlie  other 
dwellers  in  Decapolis,  who  had  not  joined  in  that  request  or  shared  in 
the  injury  which  prompted  it.  They  hring,  not  carry  (see  above,  on 
2,  3)  but  conduct,  lead,  introduce  into  his  presence  a  deaf  {inan')  hardly 
sjjealting,  i.  e.  with  difficulty,  either  an  effect  of  his  imperfect  hearing, 
or  more  probabl}^  a  separate  infirmity  arising  from  disorder  or  defect 
of  the  vocal  organs  (see  below,  upon  the  next  verse.)  The  Greek  adjec- 
tive originally  means  obtuse  or  dull,  and  is  applied  both  literally  to  a 
weapon  (as  by  Homer),  and  metaphorically  to  the  senses  of  speech  and 
hearing,  probably  because  they  are  so  commonly  diseased  together,  and 
because  the  original  want  of  hearing  necessarily  produces  that  of  speech. 
Besides  some  instances  where  both  or  either  may  be  meant,  there  are 
also  clear  examples  of  each  specific  affliction,  as  in  Matt.  9,  23  (the 
dumb  sjjalx),  and  in  jNlatt.  11,  5  (the  deafhear\  in  both  which  places 
the  original  expression  is  the  same.  It  is  another  proof  of  individuality 
in  little  things,  that  Mark  uses  this  word  only  in  the  sense  of  deaf  in- 
firmity of  speech  being  otherwise  expressed  (see  below,  on  v.  37.  9,  25.) 
Even  in  English,  the  terms  hardly  and  scarcely,  though  promiscuously 
used,  are  not  entirely  sj-nonymous.  the  former  being  positive,  the  latter 
negative ;  the  latter  meaning  ahnost  not,  the  former  icith  difficulty, 
not  without  exertion.  The  epithet  in  this  case  being  compounded  with 
the  positive  particle  does  not  mean  that  the  man  was  nearly  speechless, 
but  that  he  could  only  speak  with  difficulty  or  with  painful  effort. 
Beseech  him,  as  in  1,  40.  ;",  10.  12.  17.  18.  23.  (\  50.  to  pvt  his  hand  (that 
he  would  impose  his  hand)  vpon  him,  thus  prescribing  as  a  necessary 
9* 


202  MARK  7,  32.  33. 


means  what  they  had  seen  or  heard  of  as  employed  in  other  cases.  It 
was  probably  to  check  this  disposition  to  regard  as  indispensable  and 
constant  what  was  optional  and  variable,  and  to  indicate  not  only  what 
was  to  be  done  but  how  he  was  to  do  it,  that  our  Lord  so  often  varied 
his  external  method,  and  that  the  evangelists  so  often  specify  these 
variations.  Both  these  practices  or  habits  are  remarkably  exemplified 
in  this  case  (see  below,  upon  the  next  verse.) 

33.  And  he  took  him  aside  from  the  multitude,  aud 

put  his  lingers  into  his  ears,  and  he  spit,  and  touched  his 

tongue. 

A?id  tahing  (having  taken)  liim  away  from  the  croicd^  whose  pres 
ence,  as  being  now  a  matter  of  course  (see  above,  on  v.  2),  is  only  in- 
cidentally recorded.  Aside,  in  private,  to  a  separate  place,  the  same 
expi'cssion  that  is  used  above  in  4,  34.  6,  31.  32,  though  rendered  b}''  a 
ditl'eieut  word  in  all  four  cases  {cdoiie,  apart,  i^ritately,  aside.)  The 
reason  for  withdrawing  in  the  present  instance  has  been  various)}''  ex- 
plained, as  a  desire  to  avoid  ostentation  or  discourage  superstition,  and 
the  hk'i,  none  of  which  are  either  indicated  in  the  context  or  appropri- 
ate to  this  case  more  than  an}'  other.  In  the  absence  of  explicit  infor- 
mation on  the  subject,  no  conjecture  is  more  likely  than  that  this  pro- 
ceeding was  intended  to  defeat  the  expectations  and  to  disconcert  the 
groundless  prepossessions  of  tlie  people,  who  supposed  that  he  could 
only  work  a  miracle  in  one  way,  thereby  limiting  his  power  and  per- 
haps ascribing  an  intrinsic  virtue  to  external  acts  which  were  entirely 
arbitrary  and  at  his  discretion.  Thus  they  probably  expected  him  to 
heal  the  man  in  public  and  by  simple  imposition  of  his  hand,  whereas 
he  chose  to  work  the  miracle  in  private  or  aicay  from  the  crowd,  and 
in  the  presence  of  a  few  spectators  only,  not  by  a  simple  touch  but  by 
a  series  of  unusual  acts,  no  more  necessary  here  than  elsewhere,  but  in- 
tended to  convince  them  that  he  was  not  bound  to  any  exclusive  mode, 
and  that  he  only  used  external  acts  at  all  in  order  to  connect  the 
miraculous  effect  even  sensibly  with  his  own  person  as  the  source 
from  which  the  healing  power  proceeded  (see  above,  on  5,  23.  28.  41.) 
This  view  of  the  matter,  while  it  furnishes  at  least  as  satisfactory  a 
ground  as  any  other  for  our  Lord's  proceeding,  supersedes  the  neces- 
sity of  giving  a  specilic  sense  to  each  of  the  successive  acts  which  he 
performed  on  this  occasion,  and  which  some  interpreters  regard  as 
means  employed  to  strengthen  the  man's  faith,  or  to  meet  some  other 
exigency  of  his  case,  a  far  less  likely  supposition  than  the  one  already 
stated,  that  this  modus  o])trandi  had  no  reference  to  the  man  himself, 
except  as  one  of  a  great  number  whose  mistaken  notions  were  to  be 
corrected  and  their  groundless  expectations  disappointed.  Put^  a 
stronger  word  in  Greek,  which  strictly  means  threw  or  cast  (the  same 
with  that  in  vs.  27.  3U),  but  may  be  rendered  with  less  violation  of  our 
idiom  aud  usage,  thrust,  as  it  is  in  John  20,  25.  27.  Ilis  (own)  fngers 
into  his  (tlie  deaf  man's)  ears,  as  being  the  ])arts  specially  allected. 
Sijittiity  (having  spit),  not  with  any  reference  to  an  ancient  notion  as 


MARK  7,  33.  34.  35.  203 

to  the  medicinal  virtue  of  saliva,  but  as  an  arbitrary  act  adapted  to  the 
purpose  before  mentioned.  Touched  Ms  tongue^  either  with  his  hand, 
or  with  the  spittle,  probably  the  latter,  as  the  two  are  brought  into 
such  close  connection,  and  as  a  similar  application  is  recorded  elsewhere 
(see  below,  on  8.  23,  and  compare  John  9,  6.)  The  tongue  was  touched, 
as  the  other  diseased  organ,  these  particular  handlings  being  substi- 
tuted for  the  simple  contact  usually  practised. 

34.  And  looking  up  to  heaven,  lie  sighed,  and  saitli 
unto  him,  Ephphatha,  that  is,  Be  opened. 

And  loohing  up  (or  having  loolced  up)  into  (not  simply  to  or  to- 
wards, see  above,  on  v.  27.  where  the  same  preposition  is  employed,  but 
actually  looking  as  it  were  into)  the  slcy  (or  heaven^  see  above,  on  1, 10. 
11.  4,  4.  32.  6,  41)  as  representing  the  abode  of  God.  He  sighed  (or 
groaned\  a  natural  expression  of  distress  (see  Rom.  8,  23.  2  Cor.  5,  2. 
4.  Heb.  13,  17)  and  sometimes  of  displeasure  (James  5,  9),  but  also  of 
intense  desire  and  earnest  supplication  (Rom.  8,  2G.)  Hence  some  sup- 
pose it  here  to  indicate  a  pauifal  exercise  of  sympathy  and  pit}'-  for  the 
sufferings  of  men,  others  importunate  petition  to  the  Father.  But  as 
Christ  performed  his  cures  in  his  own  name  and  by  his  own  authority, 
and  as  no  reason  can  be  given  for  extraordinary  pity  being  either  felt 
in  this  case  or  recorded,  it  is  better  to  consider  it  as  one  of  these  exter- 
nal acts  by  which  it  pleased  him  to  distinguish  this  from  other  miracles, 
because  he  saw  a  disposition  to  regard  the  usual  routine  as  necessary 
either  by  divine  appointment  or  intrinsic  virtue.  At  the  same  time  it 
ma}^  be  conceded  that  the  acts  employed  for  this  end  were  impressive 
in  themselves  and  appropriate  to  the  case  in  hand.  Ephphatha^  an 
Aramaic  imperative,  from  a  well-known  Hebrew  root,  and  differing 
vei-y  little  from  the  corresponding  Hebrew  form,  but  still  less  from  the 
Syriac  and  Chaldce.  The  address  may  be  either  to  the  sense  or  organ 
8u  long  shut  and  useless,  or  to  the  man  himself  considered  as  shut  up, 
or  shut  out  from  so  much  enjoyment  shared  by  the  meanest  of  his  fel- 
low creatures.  AVe  have  here  another  instance  of  the  Saviour's  very 
words  in  his  vernacular  language,  carefully  preserved  as  vivid  recollec- 
tions of  a  witness  and  as  sacred  relics  or  memorials  to  others,  but  im- 
mediately followed  by  a  Greek  translation,  making  it  intelligible  to  his 
Gentile  readers  (see  above,  on  5,  41.  G,  27.  7,  4.)  The  Greek  verb  used 
is  an  emphatic  compound  meaning  to  be  opened  through  or  thoroughly. 

35.  And  straightway  his  ears  were  opened,  and  the 
string  of  his  tongue  was  loosed,  and  he  spake  ^^hiin. 

Immediately^  omitted  in  the  Vatican  and  other  ancient  copies,  proba- 
bl}^  because  the  cure  was  thought  to  be  a  gradual  and  not  an  instanta- 
neous one,  a  false  conclusion  from  the  series  of  acts  mentioned  in  the 
verse  preceding,  which  were  not  designed  to  indicate  successive  stages 
in  the  cure  itself,  but  merely  to  diversify  the  outward  antecedents  of 
the  one  change  which  as  usual  was  instantaneous.     Opened^  corapletelv. 


204  MARK  7,  35.  36.  37. 

thorough]}^,  the  same  intensive  verb  employed  in  the  foregoing  verse. 
Ears,  literally,  Jiearings,  sometimes  used  in  the  passive  sense  of  what 
is  heard  (see  above,  on  1,  28,  and  below,  on  13,  7),  sometimes  to  denote 
the  very  act  of  hearing  (as  in  Matt.  13, 14),  sometimes  in  the  active 
sense  of  that  which  hears  (as  in  Acts  17,  20.  2  Tim,  4,  3.  4,  and  here.) 
/String,  bond,  any  thing  that  binds  or  fastens,  here  used  not  in  the 
strict  sense  of  a  physical  ligament  or  ligature,  but  in  the  figurative 
sense  of  an  impediment  or  stricture,  as  in  Luke  13. 16.  where  the  bond 
is  one  imposed  by  Satan.  Spalce  jylain,  or  rather  right,  rightly,  as  the 
same  word  is  translated  in  Luke  7, 43.  10,  28.  20,  21,  not  correctly, 
as  opposed  to  barbarous  or  vulgar  elocution,  but  in  a  natural  and  nor- 
mal manner,  as  opposed  to  the  mogilaly  or  difficult  utterance  to  which 
he  had  been  subject. 

36.  And  he  charged  them  that  tliey  should  tell  no 
man  ;  but  the  more  he  charged  them,  so  much  the  more 
a  great  deal  they  published  (it) — 

Charged,  admonished  them  distinctly,  the  verb  used  above  in  5, 
43,  and  there  explained.  Here,  as  there,  the  prohibition  is  to  be  re- 
ferred to  a  divine  discretion,  by  which  the  excessive  zeal  of  those  who 
witnessed  the  Redeemer's  miracles  was  checked  and  chastened,  al- 
though not  entirely  suppressed  (see  above,  on  1, 45.)  It  is  probably 
recorded  only  in  those  cases  where  a  miracle  was  wrought  in  a  place 
or  among  a  people  less  familiar  with  such  wonders,  and  the  more  prone 
therefore  to  extravagant  activity  in  spreading  them  abroad.  Them 
may  either  be  indefinite  and  mean  such  as  happened  to  be  near  him 
and  to  hear  him,  or  denote  more  specifically  those  who  brought  the 
patient  to  be  healed  (v,  32),  his  friends  and  neighbours.  The  more,  or 
rather,  as  much  as,  in  the  same  proportion,  which  agrees  with  the  ver- 
sion as  to  sense  but  not  in  form.  So  much  the  more  a  great  deal  corre- 
sponds to  two  Greek  words  meaning  more  excessively  or  svperahun- 
dantly  (see  above,  on  6,  51.)  Published,  heralded,  proclaimed,  the 
Greek  verb  commonly  translated  ^^r^^acAe^Z  (see  above,  on  1,  4.  7.  14.  38. 
39.45.  3,14.  6,12.) 

37.  And  were  beyond  measure  astonished,  saying,  He 
hath  done  all  things  well ;  he  maketli  both  the  deaf  to 
hear  and  the  dumb  to  speak. 

The  effect  of  this  great  miracle  on  those  who  witnessed  it  was  so 
extraordinary  that  the  writer  hns  to  coin  a  Greek  word  to  express  the 
boundlessness  of  their  amazement.  This  is  a  superlative  superlative, 
formed  by  prefixing  a  particle  expressive  of  excess  both  in  Greek  and 
English  {liyjjer)  to  an  adverb  expressive  of  the  same  idea,  so  as  to 
mean  not  merely  more  than  ahundanthj,  but  more  than  superabun- 
dantly, or  superexcessively.  The  effect  itself,  produced  in  so  excessive 
a  degree,  was  that  of  wonder  or  amazement,  here  denoted  by  the  same 
verb  that  was  used  above  in  1,  22.  C,  2,  and  there  explained.     The  oral 


MARK  7,  37.  205 

expression  of  this  wonder  is  exemplified  or  summed  up  in  a  single  sen- 
tence, which  may  or  may  not  have  been  uttered  totidem  verbis,  but  on 
either  supposition  fairly  represents  the  meaning  and  the  form  of  what 
they  did  say.  He  hath  done  all  things  well^  or  restoring  the  original 
arrangement  by  inversion.  Well  (not  merel}'-  in  the  moral  sense  of 
rightly,  but  in  that  of  admirably,  beautifully,  nobly,  see  above,  on  v. 
27)  all  things  (i.  e.  all  that  we  have  seen  him  do  at  all,  but  with  par- 
ticular allusion  to  his  miracles)  he  hath  done  (from  the  beginning  to 
the  present  time),  the  proper  import  of  the  perfect  tense  as  distinguished 
from  the  jwesent  in  the  last  clause,  which  relates  to  what  had  just  been 
done  on  this  occasion.  Both  the  deaf  he  makes  (causes  or  enables)  to 
hear^  and  the  diunh  (or  speechless)  to  speah.  The  etymological  relation 
of  the  last  verb  and  adjective  adds  greatly  to  the  point  and  force  of  the 
original.  Both  adjectives  in  Greek  are  plural,  which  may  either  be 
generic  and  refer  to  this  one  case,  or  be  strictly  construed  as  relating 
to  the  many  miracles  performed  at  this  time,  of  which  Mark  records 
but  one,  while  Matthew  (15,  30.  31)  speaks  in  general  not  only  of  their 
number  but  their  vast  variety,  including  in  his  catalogue  the  very 
classes  here  particularly  mentioned,  and  by  both  evangelists  in  plural 
form. 


-•♦♦ 


CHAPTEE  YIII. 

Departing  from  his  ordinarj'-  practice  of  detailing  only  select  miracles, 
and  those  the  most  dissimilar,  Mark  here  records  a  second  instance  in 
which  Christ  miraculously  fed  a  multitude  of  people,  for  the  \qyj  rea- 
son that  the  repetition  of  a  wonder  so  stupendous  entitled  it  to  be  again 
related  (1-9-)  This  is  followed  by  a  new  mode  of  attack  or  opposition 
on  the  part  of  the  unfriendly  Pharisees,  by  calling  for  a  certain  kind  of 
miracle  which  they  chose  to  make  the  test  of  his  Messiahship,  but 
one  that  he  refused  to  furnish  (10-13.)  A  remarkable  mistake  of  the 
disciples  serves  to  show  their  backwardness  in  learning  under  such  a 
teacher,  and  affords  an  opportunity  of  further  admonition  and  instruc- 
tion (14-21.)  A  miracle  is  here  preserved  by  JNlark  alone,  distin- 
guished from  all  others  as  a  case  of  gradual  or  progressive  restoration 
(22-2G.)  During  a  circuit  in  the  north  part  of  Pcrea,  Jesus  inquires 
into  the  opinions  of  his  followers  respecting  him,  and  draws  forth  from 
the  twelve  a  formal  acknowledgment  of  his  jNIessiahship  (27-30.)  He 
then  imparts  to  them  the  new  and  painfal  doctrine  of  his  passion,  and 
rebukes  Peter  for  resisting  it  (31-33.)  This  gives  occasion  to  a  public 
statement  of  the  duty  and  necessity  of  self-denial,  and  the  danger  of 
denying  Christ  himself  (34-38.)  All  these  topics  are  connected  by  the 
twofold  tie  of  chronological  succession  and  of  a  natural  association,  prov- 
ing afresh  the  methodical  coherence  and  organic  oneness  of  the  composi- 
tion.   On  the  fir  at  three  of  these  topics  there  is  a  parallel  account  in  Mat- 


206  MARK  8,  1.  2.  3. 

thew ;  on  the  last  three  both  in  Luke  and  Matthew ;  while  the  fourth  or 
central  topic  of  the  series  is  peculiar  to  this  gospel.  Of  the  six  parallel 
accounts,  the  chronological  arrangement  is  the  same  in  both  (or  all)  the 
gospels. 

1.  In  those  days  the  multitude  bemg  very  great,  and 
having  nothing  to  eat,  Jesus  called  his  disciples  (unto 
him)  and  saith  unto  them, 

In  those  days,  an  indefinite  expression,  which  may  be  applied  to  in- 
tervals of  very  different  length,  as  will  appear  from  a  comparison  of 
JNIark  1,  9  with  Matt.  3, 1.  The  most  specific  sense  that  can  be  put 
upon  it  here  is  that  of  the  same  period,  or  general  division  of  the  his- 
tory, to  which  the  previous  narratives  belong.  It  may  however  be  de- 
fined by  the  ensuing  words,  the  crowd  'being  'oery  great  (literally,  all- 
great),  i.  e.  in  those  days  when  the  concourse  still  continued  undimin- 
ished, with  or  without  reference  to  a  subsequent  decrease  in  the  attend- 
ance. And  {they)  not  Jiaving  any  thing  to  eat  (or  more  exactly  what 
they  might  eat),  the  absolute  genitives  stating  the  circumstances  in 
which  what  is  afterwards  described  took  place.  Instead  of  very  great 
(or  all-great),  the  latest  critics,  following  the  Vatican  and  other  an- 
cient copies,  read  again  great,  which  defines  this  as  a  subsequent  occa- 
sion of  great  concourse,  similar  to  that  described  in  6,  33.  44.  The 
charge  of  inconsistency  between  the  two  evangelists  as  to  the  date  of 
this  event  proceeds  upon  the  supposition,  that  Matthew  (15,  32)  repre- 
sents it  as  occurring  on  the  same  day  with  the  cures  described  in  15, 
31,  whereas  he  merely  puts  the  two  together  without  any  note  of  time 
at  all,  by  overlooking  or  concealing  which  fact  most  of  the  alleged  disa- 
greements in  the  gospels  are  created.  Jesus  (omitted '  b)'-  the  latest 
editors,  without  effect  upon  the  sense)  calling  to  (him)  his  disciples, 
probably  the  twelve  apostles,  says  to  them,  the  graphic  present  so  fa- 
miliarly emploj'cdby  this  evangelist. 

2.  I  have  compassion  on  the  multitude,  because  they 
have  now  been  with  me  three  days,  and  have  nothing  to 
eat. 

I  have  compassion,  I  am  moved  (or  yearn)  with  pity,  the  peculiar 
idiom  ex[)lained  above  (on  1,  41.  6,34.)  The  proposition  is  here  made 
by  Christ  himself,  as  in  John's  account  of  the  former  miracle  (John  6, 
5),  with  which  that  of  Mark  (6,  35)  is  perfectly  consistent.  Because 
iilready  three  days  they  con^mz/e  ?r/^A  witf,  or,  according  to  the  oldest 
copies,  three  days  now  continue,  i.  e.  the  third  day  is  passing.  The 
ihreedays  are  probably  to  be  computed  in  the  Jewish  manner,  i.  e. 
reckoning  each  portion  as  a  whole  day,  so  that  three  days  do  not  neces- 
sarily include  more  than  one  whole  day  and  portions  of  two  others. 

3.  And  if  I  send   them   away  fasting  to  their  own 


MARK  8,  3.  4.  5.  207 

houses,   they  will  faint  by  the  way ;  for  divers  of  them 
came  from.  far. 

Send  them  aicay.  dismiss,  dissolve  them  (see  above,  on  6,  36),  not 
as  individuals  merely,  but  as  an  assembly  or  a  congregation,  which  im- 
plies that  according  to  his  custom  he  had  taught  as  well  as  healed  on 
this  occasion.  Fasting,  hungry,  without  eating,  without  having  eaten, 
a  word  found  only  in  this  passage  and  the  parallel  (Matt.  15,  32.)  7b 
their  own  houses^  literally,  to  their  house,  i.  e.  their  home,  here  spoken 
of  collectively  as  one,  which  would  not  have  been  done  if  house  had 
here  its  primary  or  proper  meaning.  The  Greek  phrase  differs  only  in* 
the  added  pronoun  from  the  one  employed  in  2, 11.  7, 17,  and  there  ex- 
plained as  meaning  ^owe  or  homeward.  They  ic  ill  faint  ^  or  be  relaxed, 
debilitated,  literally  loosened  out,  a  kindred  verb  to  that  translated 
send  away,  but  strictly  meaning  to  dissolve.  The  reference  is,  there- 
fore, not  to  fainting  in  the  modern  sense  of  swooning,  but  to  weakness, 
occasioned  by  the  want  of  food.  By  the  way,  in  (x)r  on)  the  way  home. 
iJixers,  literally  some,  implying  that  the  great  mass  came  from  the  vi- 
cinity (see  above,  on  6,41.)  Came,  or  more  correctly,  come,  or  hate 
come^  which  is  not  a  comment  of  the  historian,  as  the  form  of  the  verb 
shows,  but  a  part  of  our  Lord's  own  compassionate  address  to  his  dis- 
ciples. The  latest  text  has  and  instead  of/'o/*,  and  are  instead  of  C(>me, 
both  readings  of  the  oldest  extant  manuscript  (the  Vatican),  but  neither 
altering  the  sense. 


'o 


4.  And  his  disciples  answered  him,  From  whence  can 
a  man  satisfy  these  (men)  witli  bread  here  in  the  A\il- 
derness  ? 

Whence,  not  merely  hoic,  but  more  specifically,  from  what  source 
or  quarter  ?  A  man,  in  the  pronommal  sense  so  common  in  our  ver- 
sion (see  above,  on  1,  44.  4,  23.  5.  4.  7,  16),  the  Greek  woixl  being 
simply  an  indefinite  pronoun  meaning  any  (one.)  Can,  a  distinct  verb 
in  the  future  tense,  shall  (or  icill)  he  able.  Satisfy,  i.  e.  in  the  physi- 
cal corpoieal  sense  of  satiating,  filling  the  stomach,  appeasing  the 
desire  for  food.  (For  the  primary  and  secondary  usage  of  the  Greek 
veib.  see  above,  on  6,  42.)  With  bread,  litei-ally.  of  breads,  i.  e.  loaves 
(see  above,  on  2.26.  6,  38.)  Here,  in  the  original,  precedes  the  words 
to  fill  icitli  bread.  SiXiiX  in,  or  rather  on  (i.  e.  on  the  ban-en  surface  of) 
a  (not  the)  desert,  which  would  therefore  seem  to  mean  a  barren  waste, 
and  not  a  mere  uncultivated  solitude  (see  above,  on  6.  35.)  The  strange- 
ness of  the  fact,  that  the  disciples  should  have  spoken  thus  after  the 
first  feeding  of  the  multitude,  though  not  to  be  denied,  is  not  to  be 
exair2;crated.  It  is  not  said  that  thev  forgot  the  other  miracle ;  but 
what  right  had  they  to  expect  its  repetition,  or  what  reason  to  believe 
that  he  would  choose  what  was  in  some  respects  his  most  stu- 
pendous miracle  to  be  repeated  ?  Besides,  the  inconsideration  of 
Christ's  followers  is  always  represented  as  extraordinary,  almost  pre- 
ternatural, until  they  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit.     And  yet  Closes 


208  MARK  8,  4.  5.  6.  7. 

represents  himself  as  guilty  of  the  same  oblivion  or  unbelief  (see  Num. 
11,  21.  22,  and  compare  Ps.  78, 19.  20)  ;  and  Israel  displayed  it  upon 
all  occasions  from  the  departure  out  of  Egyj)t  till  the  entiance  into 
Canaan.  Even  those  who  now  reject  the  statement  as  incredible  would 
probably  have  done  the  same  if  similarly  situated.  Now  that  we 
know  Christ's  purpose  to  renew  the  miraculous  provision,  it  is  easy  to 
exclaim  at  those  who  did  not  know  it  and  had  really  no  reason  to  ex- 
pect it. 

5.  And  lie  asked  tliem.  How  many  loaves  liave  ye  ? 
And  tliey  said,  Seven. 

The  question  is  the  same  as  in  6,  38,  with  the  omission  of  the  order, 
go  and  see.  The  number  of  loaves  here  is  greater  (seveii)  and  the  fishes 
are  not  mentioned,  although  Matthew  (15.  34)  speaks  of  them  as  few 
and  small.  These  variations  are  exceedingly  adverse  to  the  hypothesis 
of  one  occurrence  divided  by  tradition  into  two. 

6.  And  lie  commanded  the  people  to  sit  down  on  the 
ground,  and  he  took  the  seven  loaves,  and  gave  thanks, 
and  brake,  and  gave  to  his  disciples  to  set  before  (them), 
and  they  did  set  (them)  before  the  people. 

The  order  is  the  same  as  in  6,  39,  but  addressed  directly  to  the 
crowd  by  Christ  hiaiself,  though  probably  communicated  to  them  by 
the  twelve,  as  in  the  former  case,  a  circumstance  not  mentioned  in  the 
narrative  before  us,  which  is  naturally  more  concise,  the  writer's  object 
being  only  to  record  the  chief  points  of  coincidence  and  dili'erence  be- 
tween the  cases.  On  the  earth  is  substituted  here  for  on  the  grasH  (6, 
30),  which  might  be  regarded  as  substantially  synonymous  but  for 
the  expressions  in  v.  4  implying  that  this  was  a  desert  in  the  strict 
sense,  i.  e.  wholly  destitute  of  vegetation.  Another  circumstance 
omitted  here  in  both  accounts  is  the  sj^mmetrical  arrangement  of  the 
multitude  in  companies  or  messes,  which  may  either  have  been  reall}^ 
dispensed  with  upon  this  occasion,  or  left  to  be  supplied  from  the 
earlier  narrative  (G,  39.  40.)  Another  is  the  act  of  looking  up  to 
heaven  (G,  41),  while  for  that  of  blessing  is  heie  substituted  that  of 
giving  thanks,  unless  both  be  considered  as  describing  the  same  .service, 
like  the  corresponding  English  phrase,  to  say  grace.  The  usual  and 
simple  verb  to  brealc  here  takes  the  place  of  the  emphatic  compound 
used  in  G,  41. 

7.  And  they  had  a  few  small  fishes,  and  he  blessed, 
and  commanded  to  set  them  also  before  (them.) 

Wgvq  ihafeiD  small JishesdiYQ  ioT  the  fiv^t  time  mentioned  to  com- 
plete Mark's  pictui'e  of  the  distribution.  The  second  epithet  is  not 
expres.scd  in  Greek  except  Ijy  the  diminutive  form  of  the  word  JhJies. 
It  is  not  necessarily  implied  that  they  were  separately  blessed  and  di- 


MARK   8,  7.  8.  9.  209 

vided,  although  this  would  be  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  words 
if  taken  by  themselves,  which  the  sceptical  interpreters  insist  upon  in 
all  sucli  cases,  instead  of  letting  it  be  modified  and  explained  by  the 
parallel  account,  according  to  the  method  daily  practised  in  our  courts 
of  justice. 

8.  So  they  did  eat,  and  were  filled,  and  they  took.np 
of  the  broken  (meat)  that  was  left  seven  baskets. 

The  eighth  verse  differs  from  the  corresponding  statement  (6,  42) 
only  in  the  strength  of  the  expression,  the  universal  term  {all)  being 
here  omitted.  In  the  next  clause,  instead  of  twelve  baskets  full  of 
fragments^  we  have  remnants  (excesses,  superfluities)  of  fragments^ 
seven  haslets.  Besides  the  difference  of  construction  and  of  number, 
the  word  for  hasl-ets  is  entirely  different  in  both  evangelists  from  that 
before  used  (G,  43)  ;  and  this  distinction  is  observed  in  our  Saviour's 
subsequent  allusions  to  these  two  great  miracles  (see  below,  on  8. 
19.)  The  notion  of  some  modern  sceptics,  that  this  difference  be- 
trays a  difference  of  source  or  traditional  authorit3^  proceeds  upon 
the  monstrous  supposition,  that  a  writer  capable  of  framing  such  a 
history  as  we  have  found  this  to  be,  could  either  ignorantly  or  deliber- 
ately introduce  into  his  narrative,  without  the  slightest  intimation  to 
the  reader,  two  discordant  statements  of  the  same  occurrence,  with 
their  variations  both  of  form  and  substance,  in  a  perfectly  crude  and 
unadjusted  state.  Such  a  postulate  would  not  have  been  so  long  endured 
by  Christian  readers  but  for  the  unfortunate  impression  even  among 
them,  that  the  gospels  are  mere  bundles  of  materials,  out  of  which 
we  are  to  frame  a  history,  instead  of  being  well-digested  histories 
themselves.  The  consistent  and  uniform  distinction  made  between  the 
baskets  makes  it  highly  probable  that  different  kinds  were  used  upon 
the  two  occasions,  though  the  difference  itself  may  now  be  lost,  as  it 
certainly  is  wholly  unimportant. 

9.  And  they  tiiat  liad  eaten  were  about  four  thousand, 
and  he  sent  them  away. 

The  latest  critics  have  adopted  here  the  reading  of  the  oldest  copy, 
which  is  very  brief,  and  theij  were  adout  (literally,  as)  four  thousand, 
omitting  7nen  and  those  eating,  which  may  possibly  have  been  transferred 
bj^  assimilation  from  G,  44.  It  is  woithy  of  remark  that  this  second 
narrative,  so  far  from  being  an  exaggeration  or  embellishment  of  the 
first,  not  only  makes  the  numbers  fed  absolutely  smaller,  but  the  ratio 
or  proportion  to  the  food  provided,  thus  diminishing  the  miracle  so  far 
as  mere  quantity  is  concerned.  On  what  supposition  can  this  strange 
fact  be  accounted  for,  except  the  supposition  of  historical  reality,  the 
simple  supposition  that  the  two  events  occurred  precisely  as  Mark  here 
relates  them  ?  Had  the  two  miracles  been  given  each  by  one  evangelist, 
there  might  have  been  some  colour  for  the  charge  of  tw^o  irreconcilable 
traditions  j  but  as  if  to  sweep  away  the  very  ground  of  such  an  allegation. 


210  MARK  8,  9.  10.  11. 

both  are  recorded  both  by  Mark  and  Matthew,  so  that  the  points  of 
diflerence,  instead  of  serving  to  discredit  either,  only  prove  that  the 
events  themselves  were  altogether  different.  The  points  are  indeed  as 
many  and  as  marked  as  they  could  well  have  been,  supposing  that  the 
same  essential  miracle  was  twice  performed.  The  time,  place,  numbers, 
and  proportions  are  all  different ;  and  it  is  surely  not  to  be  regarded  as 
surprising  that  the  people  in  both  instances  were  hungry,  that  the  food 
provided  was  their  ordinary  diet,  that  they  leaned  or  lay  upon  the 
ground,  that  Christ  pronounced  or  asked  a  blessing  on  the  food,  and 
employed  the  twelve  disciples  in  its  distribution.  For  how  could  any 
of  these  circumstances  vary  if  he  did  repeat  the  miracle  ?  His  reasons 
for  repeating  it  are  not  revealed  and  need  not  be  conjectured ;  but 
among  them  may  have  been  the  very  feeling  which  now  prompts  the 
question,  AVe  have  seen  it  already  to  be  not  improbable  that  some  of 
the  accompanying  acts  in  other  miracles  were  varied  for  the  purpose  of 
evincing  his  own  libert}^  and  absolute  discretion,  as  distinguished  from 
the  uniform  routine  to  which  men  would  have  tied  him.  ]Mav  he  not, 
for  the  same  reason,  have  repeated  in  a  less  imposing  form  what  they 
would  rather  have  expected  to  see  standing  by  itself  in  its  unique  sub- 
limity, as  something  that  could  happen  only  once  and  was  wholly  sui 
generis?  But  this  may  be  undue  retinement,  and  it  may  be  better  sim- 
ply to  regard  it  as  an  instance  of  authoritative  action,  independent  of 
our  tinite  views  of  what  is  right  or  needful.  That  both  these  miracles 
have  been  recorded  notwithstanding  their  resemblance,  is  explained  by 
that  which  seems  to  call  for  explanation.  It  is  no  doubt  the  practice 
of  the  sacred  writers  to  avoid  the  repetition  of  identical  or  nearly  simi- 
lar events;  but  in  a  case  of  such  surprising  repetition  of  the  acts  them- 
selves, the  very  sameness  was  a  reason  for  recording  both. 

10.  And  straightway  he  entered  into  a  ship  with  his 
disciples,  and  came  into  the  parts  of  Dahnaniitha. 

Straigliticay^  as  soon  as  he  had  sent  away  the  multitude,  implying 
an  immediate  chronological  succession  in  this  part  of  the  narrative. 
Entering  (embarking  on,  going  on  board)  not  a  ship  but  the  ship  (or 
the  hoat),  i.  e.  the  one  before  mentioned  as  attending  him  (see  above, 
on  3,  9.  4.  1-3G.  5,  2.  18.  6,  32),  in  which  he  made  his  voyages  from 
one  point  to  another,  and  from  which  he  sometimes  taught  the  people. 
The  j)ttrts  (regions,  neighbourhood)  of  Dalmanutha^  a  place  other- 
wise unknown,  but  supposed  to  have  been  a  village  or  small  town  near 
to  Magdala  (Matt.  15,  39),  the  site  of  which  has  been  determined  on 
the  west  shore  of  the  lake,  a  few  miles  north  of  Tiberias. 

11.  iVnd  the  Pharisees  came  forth,  and  began  to  ques- 
tion with  him,  seeking  of  him  a  sign  from  heaven,  tempt- 
ing him. 

The  Pharisees,  his  prominent  opponents,  as  the  zealous  adherents  of 
the  oral  law  or  traditional  theology,  came  forth  from  their  houses,  or 


MARK  8,  11.  12.  211 

came  forward  from  the  multitude  and  took  up  a  conspicuous  position 
(see  above,  on  2,  6.)  Began^  at  once,  as  soon  as  he  arrived,  implying 
also  that  they  afterwards  continued  it.  To  question  toith  hhn,  a  Greek 
verb  originally  signifying  joint  investigation,  then  discussion  or  dispute, 
particularly  when  conducted  in  the  way  of  disputatious  questioning, 
challenge,  or  demand.  Seehing  from  him,  or  demanding  of  him,  a  sign 
from  Jieaven,  as  distinguished  from  a  sign  on  earth,  such  as  his  miracles 
of  healing  were,  or  a  sign  from  hell,  as  they  declared  his  dispossessions 
of  the  demons  to  be  (see  above,  on  3,22.)  This  demand  may  have 
been  prompted  by  a  real  belief  that  th^  Messiah's  advent  was  to  be  an- 
nounced by  strange  celestial  phenomena ;  or  it  may  have  been  a  mere 
subterfuge,  a  cavilling  demand  for  more  proof  when  they  had  enough 
already,  an  attempt  to  escape  from  the  convincing  power  of  his  miracles 
on  earth  by  demanding  one  from  heaven,  TemjJtiiig  him,  not  in  the 
ordinary  sense  of  urging  or  enticing  him  to  sin,  but  in  the  primary  and 
wide  sense  of  trying,  putting  to  the  proof,  a  process  necessarily  imply- 
ing either  doubt  or  unbelief  of  his  pretensions.  In  this  sense  man  is 
said  to  tempt  God,  who  is  incapable  of  tempting  or  being  tempted  in 
the  other  (James  1.  13.) 

12.  And  he  sighed  deeply  in  his  spirit,  and  saith, 
Why  do  this  generation  seek  after  a  sign?  Yerily,  I  say 
unto  you,  There  shall  no  sign  be  given  unto  this  genera- 
tion. 

Sighing  (or  groaning)  deej)ly,  the  qualifying  term  being  not  a  sepa- 
rate Greek  word  but  a  particle  prefixed  to  the  verb  and  giving  it  inten- 
sive force,  perhaps  with  the  additional  idea  of  its  coming  up  from  the 
depths  of  the  heart,  as  this  particle  in  composition  often  denotes  upward 
motion  (see  above,  on  6,  4l.  7,  34.)  This  natural  expression  of  pro- 
found gnef  is  preserved  by  Mark  alone,  as  are  most  of  the  few  notices 
we  have  of  our  Saviour's  looks  and  gestures,  and  for  which  perhaps  we 
are  indebted  under  God  to  the  memory  of  Peter  (see  above,  on  3,  5. 
34.)  The  feeling  here  expressed  is  that  of  mingled  grief  and  indigna- 
tion at  their  obstinate  and  wicked  unbelief  (see  above,  on  6,  6.)  In  his 
spirit,  not  externally,  with  windy  suspiration  of  forced  breath,  but  in- 
wardly, the  groan  or  sigh  proceeding  from  his  very  heart  and  indicat- 
ing how  it  was  affected  (compare  Acts  2,  37.)  M^y,  i.  e.  with  what 
right,  or  on  what  ground,  since  they  thereby  called  in  question  the 
abundant  attestations  which  he  had  already  given  of  his  divine  legation. 
This  generation,  these  contemporary  Jews,  the  last  and  worst  of  their 
rebellious  race,  because  they  sinned  against  more  light  than  any  who 
had  gone  before  them,  and  crowned  all  the  sins  of  their  fathers  Avith 
tiie  crying  sin  of  denying  and  rejecting  the  Messiah  whom  they  had 
been  so  long  looking  for.  SeeJc  after,  another  compound  of  the  verb 
employed  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  signifying  earnest  search,  impor- 
tunate demand,  or  peremptory  challenge.  A  sign,  as  in  v.  11.  a  miracu- 
lous proof  of  his  divine  legation.  Verily  {Amen)  here  used  at  the  begin- 
ning of  a  sentence  as  a  solemn  affirmation  of  its  truth  (see  above,  on  3 


212  MARK  8,  12.  13.  14. 

28.  6;  11.)  I  say  to  you  is  also  .in  impressive  attestation  of  the  authoi- 
ity  and  weight  of  what  is  just  about  to  be  uttered.  This  twofold  pre- 
paration for  what  follows  indicates,  not  only  its  importance  in  itself,  but 
its  serious  bearins;  on  the  interests  of  those  whom  it  concerns.  The 
form  of  the  last  clause  is  highly  idiomatic,  being  that  of  a  Hebrew  oath, 
in  which  the  first  part  (commonly  suppressed)  invokes  the  divine  ven- 
geance on  the  speaker  if  a  certain  thing  is  done  (1  Sam.  3, 17.  24,  7. 
2  Sam.  3,  35.  11,  11),  so  that  the  conditional  expression  is  in  fact  the 
strongest  kind  of  affirmation.  If  a  sign  shall  te  gwe?i,  thus  explained, 
is  equivalent  to  saying,  7'to  sign  shall  J)e  giveii^  as  expressed  in  the  trans- 
lation. ]^o  sigfi,  i.  e.  no  such  sign  as  they  demanded,  no  sign  of  their 
own  choosing  or  prescribing. 

13.  And  lie  left  tliem,  and  entering  into  tlie  ship  again 
departed  to  the  other  side. 

And  leaving  them,  in  Greek  a  strong  expression,  meaning  more  than 
locomotion  or  mere  change  of  place,  because  from  etymology  and  usage 
it  sutrgests  the  idea  of  abandonment,  letting  them  alone,  leaving  them  to 
themselves,  giving  them  up  to  hopeless  unbelief  (compare  the  previous 
uses  of  the  same  verb  in  this  gospel,  1,  18.  31.  34.  2,  5.  3, 18.  4,  12.  36. 
5, 19.  7,  8. 12.  27.)  Dejjarted^  went  away  (from  them)  into  the  other 
side  (of  the  lake),  i.  e.  into  the  region  of  Perea.  (See  above,  on  3,  8. 
4,  35.  5,  1.  21.  C,  45.)  This  dialogue,  recorded  more  fully  by  Matthew 
(16,  1-4),  is  sufficiently  detailed  to  answer  Mark's  immediate  purpose, 
that  of  marking  another  step  in  the  progress  of  the  systematic  opposi- 
tion to  the  Saviour.  This  consisted  in  a  formal  peremptory  call  for 
clearer  evidence,  and  further  attestation  of  his  claim  to  be  "  a  teacher 
come  from  God"'  (John  3,  2.)  It  was  therefore  a  virtual  though  indi- 
rect and  negative  rejection  of  that  claim,  not  by  private  individuals  but 
by  the  party-leaders  and  the  rulers  of  the  nation  (jMatt.  16,  1),  not  on 
one  occasion  but  repeatedly,     (Matt.  12,  38.    Luke  11,  16.) 

14.  Kow  (the  disciples)  had  forgotten  to  take  hread, 

neither  had   thej  in  the  ship  with  them  more  than  one 

loaf. 

Note,  in  Greek  simply  and,  connecting  what  follows  with  what  goes 
before  in  the  most  intimate  manner  as  a  part  of  the  same  context.  JIad 
forgotten,  a  pluperfect  form  perhaps  required  by  our  idiom,  but  corre- 
sponding to  a  simple  aorist  in  Greek,  they  forgot  to  take,  or  forgot  them- 
selves as  to  taking,  a  more  expressive  way  of  saying  the  same  thing. 
Bread,  in  Greek  the  usual  plural  form  distinguishing  the  separate  cakes 
or  loaves,  and  here  denoting  the  usual  provision  for  the  company,  espe- 
ciall}^  when  going  on  a  journey.  The  remainder  of  the  verse  is  \ery 
loo.sely  rendered  as  to  form,  although  the  meaning  is  correctly  given. 
And  except  (literally,  if  not)  one  loaf  they  had  not  irith  them  (literalh', 
icith  thernsekes)  in  the  hoat.  This  particular  statement  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  general  terras  used  by  ]Matthew  (16,  5),  because 


MARK  8,  14.  15.  213 

this  one  loaf  was  probably  left  over  from  a  previous  supply,  and  would 
not  have  prevented  their  laj'ing  in  a  fresh  stock  if  they  had  not  forgot- 
ten it.  If  this  minute  stroke,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  is  one  of  Peter's 
reminiscences,  it  serves  with  many  others  of  the  same  kind,  to  show 
how  much  more  vivid  that  apostle's  recollections  of  minutiae  were  than 
those  of  Matthew,  also  an  eye-witness. 

15.  And  he  charged  them,  saying,  Take  heed,  beware 

of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  and  (of)  the  leaven  of 

Herod. 

By  what  would  be  a  curious  coincidence  where  mere  men  were  ex- 
clusively concerned,  our  Lord  begins,  probably  after  they  had  thought 
of  their  neglect  to  carry  bread  and  had  begun  to  be  solicitous  about  it, 
a  parabolical  discourse,  in  which  he  draws  his  illustration  from  the  cus- 
tomary mode  of  making  bread,  i.  e.  with  yeast  or  leaven.  As  this 
substance  draws  its  useful  quality  from  fermentation,  and  as  this  may 
be  considered  an  incipient  corruption,  it  affords  a  natural  and  striking 
emblem  of  the  same  thing  in  the  moral  world.  Hence  no  doubt  it  was 
excluded  from  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law  (Ex.  34,  25.  Lev. 
2, 11),  and  is  employed  so  uniformly  as  a  figure  for  depravity  or  depra- 
vation, that  the  only  exception  commonly  admitted,  the  parable  which 
Luke  and  Matthew  join  with  that  of  the  mustard  seed  (see  above,  on 
TV.  31),  is  thought  by  some  to  be  no  exception  at  all,  but  the  reverse  or 
wrong  side  of  the  parable  just  mentioned,  and  designed  to  show  the 
spreading  tendency  of  evil  no  less  than  of  good,  not  onh^  in  the  world 
but  even  in  the  church  of  God.  However  this  may  be.  a  question 
which  belongs  to  the  interpretation  of  the  other  gospels,  the  parable  of 
the  leaven  being  omitted  in  the  one  before  us,  it  is  certain  that  our 
Lord  here  makes  use  of  the  emblem  in  a  bad  sense,  when  he  tells  his 
disciples  to  hewai'e  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees.  Beicare  of  literally 
looh  (or  see)  frorn^  i.  e.  as  some  explain  it,  looh  aicay  from  (or  refuse 
to  see)  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees.  But  it  rather  denotes  just  the 
opposite,  to  wit,  the  act  of  looking  at  it  so  as  to  avoid  it.  The  prepo- 
sition (from)  is  construed  with  the  verb,  not  in  its  primary  sense  of 
seeing,  looking,  but  in  its  secondary  sense  of  looking  out.  taking  care, 
being  circumspect  or  cautious,  of  which  sense  we  have  had  already  at 
least  one  example.  (See  above,  on  4,  24.)  The  verb  being  thus  ex- 
plained, the  preposition  indicates  the  object /rom  which  one  is  to  escape 
by  looking  out,  or  against  which  he  is  to  be  guarded  or  upon  his  gunrd. 
The  particular  corruption  to  which  Christ  applies  this  figurative  term 
is  that  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  Herod^  or  according  to  Matthew  (IG,  G), 
that  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  There  are  two  explanations  of 
this  discrepancy  commonly  adopted,  one  by  sceptical,  the  other  by  be- 
lieving writers.  The  first  treats  Matthew's  statement  as  at  variance 
not  only  with  Mark's  but  with  itself,  because  it  represents  the  two 
great  hostile  sects  or  parties  as  possessing  one  and  the  same  leaven. 
The  second,  oveilooking  the  latter  objection,  reconciles  the  gospels  by 
assuming  or  concltiding  that  Herod  was  a  Sadducee,  and  is  here  named 


214  MARK  8,  15.  16 


as  such  by  way  of  eminence.  To  this  there  is  only  a  negative  objec- 
tion drawn  from  the  silence  of  Josephus,  or  a  positive  one  from  his 
being  rather  represented  b}''  that  writer  as  a  Pharisee.  Apart  from 
this  the  conjecture  is  probable  enough,  since  the  Jews  regarded  all  the 
Herods  as  half-heathen,  not  only  on  account  of  their  Idumean  origin, 
but  also  as  the  tools  and  vassals  of  a  foreign  power.  This  would  of 
course  make  them  odious  to  the  Pharisees,  the  party  who  contended 
for  all  national  distinctions  and  against  the  least  assimilation  to  the 
heathen.  But  however  plausible  or  doubtful  this  conjecture  ma}'  be, 
it  is  not  needed  here  to  vindicate  or  reconcile  the  gospels,  which  may 
be  accomplished  in  another  and  an  easier  way,  by  simply  observing 
that  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  against  which  the  disciples  are  here 
warned,  is  nothing  peculiar  to  or  characteristic  of  them,  but  something 
common  to  them  with  the  Sadducees  and  Herod,  and  all  others  who 
professed  the  true  religion  without  really  possessing  it.  Our  Lord 
might  therefore  have  connected  all  these  names,  and  others  too,  with- 
out the  slightest  incongruit}',  because  he  is  referring  to  the  points  in 
which  they  are  alike  and  not  the  points  in  which  they  differ.  AVhat 
the  point  of  contact  and  agreement  was  between  these  most  dissimilar 
and  hostile  parties  will  be  seen  below  (on  v.  21.)  In  the  mean  time 
their  conjunction  by  our  Saviour  may  be  likened  to  the  language  of  a 
zealous  preacher  now,  who  should  exhort  his  hearers  to  be  careful  that 
their  piety  was  not  that  of  a  Papist,  a  Jew,  or  a  Mahometan,  but  that 
of  a  true  Christian.  The  sense  of  such  an  exhortation  would  be  evi- 
dent, but  who  would  charge  it  with  confounding  inimical,  nay  opposite 
religions  ? 

16.  And  tliey  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying,  (It 
is)  because  we  have  no  bread. 

And  tliey  reasoned,  reckoned,  or  considered  through  and  through, 
the  same  emphatic  compound  that  is  used  above  in  2,  G.  8,  and  there 
explained.  Among  themselces,  not  merely  in  tJiemssUes  (Matt.  16,  7), 
that  is.  each  within  his  own  breast,  but  as  the  Greek  expressly  means, 
and  should  have  been  translated,  to  (or  with)  each  other.  This  does 
not  here  im[)iy  disjjute,  but  only  earnest  conversation  and  comparison 
of  views,  in  which  they  seem  to  have  agreed,  since  they  ai'e  all  repre- 
sented as  saying,  i.  e.  in  substance:  (it  is,  or  he  says  this)  because  we 
have  not  bread.  This  little  circumstance,  which  none  but  a  true  his- 
tory would  have  given,  speaks  volumes  as  to  the  simplicity  and  igno- 
rance of  Christ's  disciples,  even  after  they  had  been  so  long  in  contact 
with  him,  and  had  gone  forth  from  him  as  apostles  preaciiing  and  per- 
forming miracles.  With  respect  to  the  error  here  i-ecorded,  however 
childish  it  may  now  seem,  it  becomes  us  to  remember  that  many  who 
deride  such  blunders  as  absurd,  if  not  impossible,  would  probably 
have  made  the  same  if  placed  in  the  same  situation,  with  their  thoughts 
running  upon  bread,  and  a  mysterious  intimation  from  their  master 
about  leaven.  Accustomed  as  they  were  to  hear  him  speak  in  riddles 
on  the  plainest  subjects,  why  might  they  not  without  absurdity  sup- 
pose him  to  be  doing  so  now  ? 


MAKK  8,  17.  18.  19.  20.  215 

17.  And  when  Jesus  knew  (it,)  he  saith  unto  tliem, 
'Why  reason  ye,  because  ye  have  no  bread  ?  perceive  ye 
not  yet,  neither  understand  ?  have  ye  your  heart  yet 
hardened  ? 

But  although  not  utterly  irrational,  and  therefore  not  deserving  our 
contempt,  this  error  was  still  culpable  and  merited  their  Lord's  rebuke. 
When  Jesus  hnew  (it)  seems  to  imply  that  he  afterwards  discovered  it, 
an  idea  not  suggested  by  the  Greek  or  by  a  close  translation.  Jesus 
hiowing.  i.  e.  on  the  spot  and  at  the  moment,  what  they  said,  and  what 
they  thought.  Why  reason  ye  hecause  ye  have  not  'bread  ?  i.  e.  why 
connect  what  I  have  just  said  with  your  want  of  bread,  and  try  to  give 
my  words  a  meaning  in  relation  to  that  trifling  matter?  It  is  not  their 
want  of  perspicacity  in  seeing  what  he  meant  for  which  he  blames  them, 
but  the  undue  anxiety  about  mere  temporalities  which  occupied  their 
minds,  and  made  them  thus  incapable  of  knowing  what  he  meant,  or  at 
least  that  he  was  talking  upon  higher  subjects.  Do  ye  not  yet  2>erceive 
the  drift  of  my  discourses,  and  the  end  to  which  mj^  teachings  are  all 
tending  ?  Nor  understaiid  or  comprehend  at  kast  my  general  purpose  ? 
(For  the  usage  of  this  last  verb  see  above  on  4,  12.  6,  52.  7,  14.) 
Still  hardened^  obtuse,  stupid,  have  ye  (or  do  ye  hold  or  keep)  your 
hearty  i.  e.  your  mind  or  soul. 

18.  Having  eyes,  see  ye  not  ?  and  having  ears,  hear 
ye  not  ?  and  do  ye  not  remember? 

By  a  singular  interchange  of  parts,  ]Mark  here  takes  Matthew's  place 
as  a  recorder  of  prophetical  quotations,  which  however  is  the  less  surpris- 
ing since  the  latter  had  already  given  the  same  passage  as  cited  on  a  dif- 
ferent occasion  (Matt.  13, 15.)  Or  perhaps  the  true  view  of  the  matter 
is  that  this  is  not  so  much  a  reference  to  the  passage  in  Isaiah  as  to  the 
proverb  from  which  it  derived  its  form,  and  which  as  we  have  seen 
was  current  among  Greeks  as  well  as  Jews.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  Are 
you  still  so  stupid  as  to  be  proverbially  described  as  having  ej^es  but 
not  seeing,  ears  but  not  hearing  ? '  (See  above,  on  4, 12.)  But  to  them 
he  adds  another  question  which  should  be  connected  with  the  next 
verse. 

19.  When  1  brake  the  five  loaves  among  five  thousand, 
how  many  baskets  full  of  fragments  took  ye  up  ?  Tliey 
say  unto  him,  Twelve.  20.  And  when  the  seven  among 
four  thousand,  how  many  baskets  full  of  fragments  took 
ye  up  ?  And  they  said.  Seven. 

^  If  you  have  not  strength  of  intellect  sufficient  to  divine  or  compre- 
hend my  meaning,  have  j-^ou  not  at  least  some  memory  of  what  has 
passed  so  lately  in  your  presence,  before  your  e3-es,  and  through  your 
very  hands  ? '     This  reproach,  it  will  be  seen  at  once,  relates  not  so 


216  MARK  8,  20.  21. 

much  to  their  misapprehension  of  his  words  about  the  leaven,  as  to 
their  extreme  anxiety  about  the  bread,  which  not  only  distracted  and 
preoccupied  their  thoughts,  but  indicated  want  of  faith  in  his  capacity 
to  help  them  and  provide  for  them.  Although  he  never  performed 
miracles  where  ordinary  means  would  answer  the  same  purpose,  they 
had  surely  no  occasion  to  be  troubled  at  the  want  of  bread,  when  he 
had  twice  created  it  to  feed  not  single  individuals  but  thousands.  Mark 
represents  him  as  not  merely  asking  them  if  they  remembered  these 
two  signal  miracles  (Matt.  IG,  9.  10),  but  forcing  them  to  tell  how 
many  fragments  the}-^  had  taken  up  on  each  occasion.  Upon  this  ap- 
peal to  their  own  memory  two  things  may  be  observed  ;  first,  as  already 
hinted  (see  above,  on  v.  8),  that  the  two  kinds  of  baskets  are  distin- 
guished here  by  both  evangelists  as  in  the  narrative  itself,  so  that  the 
difference  cannot  be  unmeaning  or  fortuitous ;  and  secondlj-,  that  if 
the  two  accounts  of  the  two  miracles  are  merely  two  traditions  of  the 
same  thing,  then  these  words  of  Christ  referring  to  them  as  distinct 
events  must  also  be  explained  away.  When  I  hrcde  (implying  dis- 
tribution) tliejiie  loaves  among  (or  to)  tliejiie  tliousand^  i.  e.  the  five 
and  the  five  thousand,  the  four  and  the  four  thousand,  now  so  mem- 
orable in  my  histor}'^  and  j^ours,  but  which  30U  seem  so  strangely  to 
have  since  forgotten. 

21.  And  he  said  unto  tliem,  How  is  it  that  ye  do  not 
understand? 

And  lie  said  to  them,  Mark's  favourite  and  characteristic  formula, 
here  giving  prominence  and  bold  relief  to  this  concluding  sentence 
as  if  separately  uttered.  Hoic  is  it  that  ye  do  not  understand,  not 
my  parables  or  enigmatical  teachings  till  they  are  explained,  but  the 
design  of  my  instructions,  as  relating  not  to  bread  but  to  religion,  and 
the  import  of  my  miracles,  as  proving  my  capacity  to  feed  you  even 
by  creating  food,  should  that  be  needful.  Had  thev  duly  considered 
what  his  miracles  implied,  they  would  not  have  had  their  minds  en- 
grossed b}"-  bread,  or  by  the  want  of  bread,  when  he  was  speaking, 
and  would  then  have  understood,  if  not  preciscl}--  Avhat  he  meant  by 
leaven,  yet  at  least  that  he  did  not  mean  the  leaven  u'sed  in  making 
bread.  This  seems  to  be  the  natural  connection  of  the  thoughts,  even 
in  the  narrative  of  Mark,  who  stops  short  at  this  laconic  question, 
without  any  further  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  leaven.  This 
shows  that  his  design  was  not  to  elucidate  that  figure,  but  to  illustrate 
the  condition  of  the  twelve  at  this  important  juncture.  As  the  true 
sense  of  our  Saviour's  woids,  however,  though  belonging  stiictly  to  the 
exposition  of  the  other  Gospels,  is  highly  interesting  and  important  in 
itself,  it  may  here  be  added  that  before  the  conversation  ended,  they 
had  learned  that  by  leaven  he  intended  doctrine,  not  opinions  or  dis- 
tinctive tenets,  as  to  which  the  parties  named  could  not  have  been 
described  together,  but  their  mode  of  teaching  and  expounding  spiritual 
truth,  which  in  all  these  cases  was  more  or  less  external,  superficial, 
tereuionial,  and  is  therefore  elsewhere  called  hypocrisy  (Luke  12,  1.) 


M  A  R  K  8,  21.  22.  23.  217 


On  the  true  sense  of  these  two  words,  doctrine  and  Tiypocrisy^  both 
^vhich  have  already  been  explained  (see  above  on  1,  22.  27.  4,  2.  7,  6), 
depends  not  only  our  Lord's  meaning  in  this  interesting  passage,  but 
the  ao-reeinent  of  the  several  accounts. 

22.  x\.nd  lie  cometli  to  Bethsaida ;  and  tliey  bring  a 

blind  man  unto  him,  and  besonglit  him  to  touch  him. 

Mark  here  records  a  miracle  not  given  in  the  other  gospels,  one  of 
the  very  few  passages  entire!}^  peculiar  to  his.  His  reason  for  insert- 
ing it  cannot  be  mei'ely  that  it  followed  the  dialogue  above  recorded 
(vs.  14-21)  ;  for  he  often  omits  multitudes  of  miracles  in  writing  of 
the  pei'iods  to  which  they  belong.  So  far  as  his  design  can  be  conjec- 
tured, it  was  probably  to  illustrate  and  exemplif}'-  still  further  our 
Loi'd's  variety  of  method  in  tlie  working  of  his  cures,  by  stating  a  case 
(perhaps  the  only  one)  in  which  the  cure  was  gradual.  He  cometh,  or, 
accordmg  to  the  oldest  manuscripts,  they  come,  i.  e.  Jesus  and  his  com- 
pany, the  twelve  apostles  and  perhaps  some  others  who  attended  him 
from  place  to  place.  To  (or  into)  Betlmtida,  or,  as  a  lew  copies  have 
it,  Bethany,  an  obvious  error  of  transcription,  probably  occasioned  by 
the  resemblance  of  the  names,  both  which  are  compounded  with  the 
Hebrew  heth  (a  house  or  place.)  Betlisaida  is  supposed  b}^  some  to 
be  the  town  so  called  in  Galilee,  the  birth-place  of  Andrew  and  Peter 
(John  1,44);  but  the  best  interpreters  and  highest  geograpliical  au- 
thorities understand  it  of  Bethsaida  in  Perea,  on  the  north-east  shore 
of  the  lake,  in  a  solitude  near  which  (or  belonging  to  it)  the  five  thou- 
sand were  fed  (see  above,  on  6,  31.)  This  Bethsaida  was  distinguished 
from  the  other  hj  its  Greek  or  Roman  name,  Julias,  which  it  bore  in 
honour  of  a  daughter  of  Augustus,  l^hey,  indefinitelj'^,  some  men,  cer- 
tain persons,  otherwise  unknown ;  or  more  specifically,  the  man's  rela- 
tives, friends,  neighbours.  A  Mind  (man),  not  one  born  blind  (as  in 
John  9.  1),  for  he  knew  the  shajje  of  trees  (.see  below,  on  v.  24).  but 
blinded  by  disease  or  accident.  Besought,  in  Greek  heseech,  the  graphic 
or  descriptive  present  being  still  continued.  To  touch  him,  literall}', 
that  he  would  (or  still  more  closely,  so  that,  in  order  that,  he  might) 
touch  him.  These  woi'ds  in  the  original  rather  state  the  motive  than 
the  substance  of  the  prayer,  a  nicety  of  form  without  effect  upon  the 
meaning,  yet  entitled  to  attention  as  an  illustration  of  the  difference  of 
idiom.  This  specific  prayer  is  not  a  sign  of  strong  but  rather  of  defi- 
cient or  contracted  faitti,  assuming  contact  to  be  necessary  to  the  cure, 
an  error  which  our  Saviour  did  not  think  it  necessary  in  the  present 
instance  either  to  reprove  or  correct  (see  above,  on  7,  33.) 

23.  And  he  took  the  blind  man  by  the  hand,  and  led 
liim  out  of  the  town ;  and  when  he  had  spit  on  his  eyes, 
and  put  his  Iiands  upon  him,  he  asked  him  if  he  saw 
aught. 

And  taking,  laying  hold  upon,  the  hand  of  the  Mind  (man),  which 
10 


218  MARK  8,  23.  24. 

is  the  order  of  the  words  in  the  original,  although  the  construction  in 
the  version  is  grammatical  and  justified  by  usage  ;  the  sense  of  course 
remains  the  same  in  either  case.  He  led  him  forth  out  (or  outside)  of 
the  villdge,  a  term  applied  with  considerable  latitude  to  towns  of  every 
size  (see  above,  on  C,  3G.  56.)  Out  is  twice  expressed  in  Greek,  once 
by  the  compound  verb,  and  once  by  the  adverbial  preposition  (e'lo.) 
The  reason  of  this  movement  has  been  variously  conjectured  (as  in  7, 
33)  ;  some  supposing  an  intention  to  express  displeasure  towards  the 
people  of  the  town  for  reasons  now  unknown ;  others  a  desire  to  be 
uninterrui)ted  in  the  process  which  was  more  than  commonly  pro- 
tracted. But  these  and  other  explanations,  which  need  not  be  stated, 
assume  that  Mark  intended  to  describe  this  and  the  following  proceed- 
ings on  our  Lord's  part  as  having  a  distinct  significance,  whereas  he 
rather  means  to  show  how  far  he  was  from  following  a  fixed  routine, 
or  countenancing  the  idea  that  a  certain  outward  form  was  necessary 
to  the  curative  effect.  Against  this  error  he  provided  by  sometimes 
doing  more,  sometimes  less,  sometimes  nothing,  in  the  way  of  gesture 
or  manipulation,  and  of  all  these  methods  we  have  instances  recorded 
in  the  book  before  us.  Having  spit  on  (or  rather  into)  his  eyes,  which 
some  regard  as  a  medicinal  appliance,  healing  virtue  being  ascribed  to 
the  human  saliva  by  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  Pliny,  and  in  various  dicta  of 
the  Talmud.  Others  find  a  symbolical  meaning  in  the  transfer  of  some- 
thing from  the  person  of  the  healer  to  the  person  of  the  healed.  But 
the  necessity  of  these  conjectures  is  precluded  by  the  view  of  the  mat- 
ter just  suggested.  And  2Jutting  (laying  or  imposing)  hands  vj^on 
him,  as  had  been  requested  by  his  friends  (v.  22.)  Asl-ed,  interro- 
gated, questioned  (see  above,  on  v.  5.)  If  he  saic  (literally,  sees^  an- 
other instance  of  the  graphic  present)  ought,  an  old  word,  not  yet 
wholly  obsolete,  for  any  thing.  This  pause,  as  it  were,  in  the  midst 
of  the  cure,  to  ask  him  as  to  its  effect,  is  so  unlike  the  usual  imme- 
diate restoration,  that  it  may  be  confidently  reckoned  as  at  least  one 
reason  for  Mark's  giving  a  detailed  account  of  this  case. 

24.  And  lie  looked  up,  and  said,  I  see  men  as  trees 
walking. 

And  looldng  vp,  raising  his  eyes,  trying  to  use  them.  The  particle 
with  which  the  Greek  verb  is  compounded  sometimes  denotes  upward 
motion  (see  above,  on  v.  12),  sometimes  repetition.  Hence  tlie  verb 
itself  may  either  mean  to  look  up  or  to  see  again,hiit  the  latter,  tliough 
preferred  by  some  interpreters,  is  a  less  natural  anticination  of  what 
follows  in  the  next  verse.  The  sensations  of  the  blind  man,  on  his 
first  attempt  to  see  again,  are  strangelj'  but  expressively  described*  in 
his  own  language,  the  peculiarity  of  which,  however,  is  exaggerated  to 
the  English  reader  by  an  equivocal  construction,  quite  unknown  to  the 
original,  and  onl}''  partially  removed  by  careful  punctuation  in  the 
version.  It  is  probably  one  of  the  most  common  and  inveterate  mis- 
ai)prehensions  of  a  scriptural  expression,  that  the  participle  walking 
here  agrees  with  ti-ees.  and  that  the  blind  man  intended  to  describe  his 


MARK  8.  24.  25.  219 

partially  restored  sight  by  saying  that  the  men  around  him  -were  like 
walking  trees.  But  in  Greek  there  is  and  can  be  no  such  ambiguity, 
the  concord  being  there  determined,  not  by  the  position  of  the  woi'ds, 
which  is  far  more  free  and  discretionary  than  with  us,  but  by  their 
form  or  termination,  which  distinguishes  their  gender,  and  requires 
icall-i?ig  to  agree  with  onen,  and  trees  to  be  taken  by  itself  without  any 
qualifying  epithet.  The  word  men  also  has  the  article  which  shows  it 
to  mean  not  men  in  general,  but  tlie  men  who  were  passing  or  at  hand, 
perhaps  the  twelve  apostles ;  for  although  he  led  him  out  of  town,  it  is 
not  said  that  they  were  unaccompanied,  or  that  the  place  to  which  he 
brought  him  was  a  solitude.  The  meaning  therefore  of  the  clause,  ac- 
cording to  the  common  or  received  text,  is,  I  see  the  memoalking  aJjout 
as  trees,  i.  e.  undefined  in  form  and  figure.  Except  bj^  their  motions, 
which  were  those  of  men,  he  could  not  distinguish  them  from  trees. 
It  is  remarkable  however  that  the  oldest  manuscripts  almost  without 
exception  have  another  reading,  which  appears  to  give  the  patient's 
words  more  fully.  IheJioId  men  'because  as  trees  I  see  {them)  walk-' 
ing.  This  is  an  awkward  sentence,  it  is  true,  but  not  on  that  account 
less  likely  to  have  been  pronounced  on  this  occasion,  while  its  very 
awkwardness  may  possibly  have  led  to  its  abbreviation  in  the  later 
copies.  The  weight  of  manuscript  authority  in  favour  of  this  reading 
is  confirmed  by  its  internal  fitness,  as  a  broken  expiession  of  surprise 
and  jo}',  beginning  with  a  sudden  exclamation,  /  see  the  men!  then 
qualifying  or  explaining  it  by  adding,  because  (that  is,  at  least),  as  trees 
I  see  {them)  tcallhig, 

25.  After  that,  lie  put  (liis)  liands  again  upon  his  eyes, 

and  made  him  h:)ok  up ;  and  he  was  restored,  and  saw 

every  man  clearly. 

Then,  afterwards,  or  in  the  next  place,  a  Greek  particle  often  em- 
ployed to  separate  the  items  in  an  enumeration,  and  intended  here  to 
mark  distinctl}'  the  successive  stages  of  the  healing  process,  an  eilect 
secured  still  further  b}'^  the  word  again,  which  is  the  next  in  the  ori- 
ginal though  not  in  the  translation.  As  if  he  had  said,  having  gone 
thus  far  and  partially  restored  the  man's  sight,  he  proceeded  in  the 
next  place  to  impose  his  hands  upon  the  eyes  themselves,  as  he  had 
previously  done  upon  some  other  part,  perhaps  the  head.  It  is  possible 
indeed  that  even  in  the  former  instance  he  had  laid  his  hands  upon  his 
e3'es,  but  this  is  a  less  natural  construction  of  the  language,  spitting 
in  Ms  eyes  and  laying  his  hands  on  him,  where  the  mention  of  ttie  eyes 
in  one  clause  and  of  the  person  in  the  other,  favours,  though  it  may 
not  peremptorily  require,  the  former  explanation.  Made  him,  cuui^ed 
him,  i.  e.  in  this  case  botVi  required  and  enabled  him.  Look  iqj,  or  see 
again,  the  same  two  senses  of  the  verb  that  are  admissible  in  the  verse 
preceding.  If  the  latter  be  adopted  here,  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 
is,  that  he  caused  him  to  receive  his  sight  ;  if  the  foi'nier,  that  \\ii  caused 
Mm  to  look  up,  or  try  to  see,  on  which  he  found  his  sight  restored  com- 
pletely.    The  only  objection  to  the  first  construction  is  that  the  resto- 


220  MARK  8,  25.  26. 

ration  of  his  sight  is  then  distinctly  stated  three  times,  whereas  on  the 
other  su[)position,  it  is  only  stated  once,  the  other  two  expressions 
being  then  descriptive  of  the  effort  or  experiment  by  which  the  patient 
was  assured  first  of  partial  then  of  total  restoration.  He  looked  up 
once  and  saw  men  1  ike  trees  ;  he  looked  up  again  and  saw  them  clearl}'. 
Was  restored  to  (reinstated  in)  his  sound  or  normal  state,  another  term 
implying  that  he  was  not  born  blind.  Beery  (rnan),  or  all  (tilings), 
as  the  Greek  may  be  either  masculine  and  singular,  or  neuter  and  plu- 
ral. Another  reading,  found  in  some  editions,  removes  the  ambiguity 
by  making  it  both  masculine  and  plural,  (all  men),  which  may  then  be 
understood  to  mean  specifically  all  those  whom  he  saw  before  as  trees 
(but)  walhi)ig.  Clearly,  an  expressive  Greek  word  which  originally 
vaesinsfarsightedly,  in  opposition  to  near  (or  short)  sight,  although 
here,  as  in  the  classics,  it  may  have  the  wider  secondary  sense  ex- 
pressed in  the  translation  and  opposed  to  the  dimness  of  his  sight  when 
only  partially  recovered. 

26.  And  lie  sent  liim  away  to  liis  house,  saying,  Nei- 
ther go  into  tlie  town,  nor  tell  (it)  to  any  in  the  town. 

And  he  sent  Mm  aioay  into  his  house  (or  to  his  house),  which  was 
not  in  the  town  or  village,  as  appears  from  the  ensuing  prohibition. 
The  modern  philologists  deny  that  the  Greek  particle  repeated  here 
(jir]hi  ....  /xr;Se')  ever  corresponds  to  neither  ....  nor  in  English,  as 
expressing  an  alternative  originally  present  to  the  speaker's  mind; 
and  one  of  them  explains  the  first  to  mean  not  even,  and  the  la.st  nor 
even.  '  I)o  not  even  go  into  the  village,  nor  so  much  as  speak  to  any 
(person)  in  the  village.'  The  supposed  inconsistency  of  these  two 
precepts,  or  at  least  the  superfluousness  of  the  last,  as  he  could  not 
tell  it  in  the  town  unless  he  went  there,  has  produced  no  less  than  ten 
variations  in  the  text  of  this  clause,  all  intended  to  remove  the  incon- 
gruity, and  therefore  all  to  be  rejected  as  mere  glosses.  This  may 
serve  to  show  by  a  remarkable  example  the  extraordinary  principle, 
on  which  the  ancient  copyists  frequently  proceeded,  of  deciding  what 
the  writer  should  have  said,  instead  of  simpl  v  telling  what  he  did  B^y. 
To  this  single  error  may  be  traced  a  large  proportion  of  existing  vari- 
ations in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  most  of  which  happily  have 
never  become  current,  but  are  found  exclusively  in  certain  copios  or 
at  most  in  certain  families  or  classes  of  manuscripts.  This  erroneous 
principle  or  practice  is  the  more  to  be  condeumed  as  the  necessity  of 
emendation  is  in  almost  every  case  imaginary.  In  the  one  before  us, 
for  example,  the  supposed  incongruity  arises  from  the  strict  fidelity 
with  which  the  very  words  of  Christ  (or  their  equivalents)  ai'c  here 
reported  just  as  he  ])ronounced  them,  not  in  a  rhetorical  or  rounded  pe- 
riod, but  in  shoi't  successive  clauses,  the  natural  form  of  a  peremptory 
order.  The  man  having  just  been  brought  out  of  the  town,  though 
not  residing  there,  would  naturally  think  of  going  back  to  tell  and 
show  what  had  been  done  to  him.  But  this  our  Lord,  for  reasons 
which  have  often  been  explained  before,  is  determined  to  prevent  by 


MARK  8,  26.  27.  221 

pointed  positiye  directions,  which,  without  a  change  of  meaning,  may 
be  paraphrased  as  follows :  '  Go  home — go  directly  home — no,  not 
into  the  town,  but  home — not  even  for  an  hour  or  a  moment — do  not 
go  into  the  town  at  all — not  even  to  tell  what  I  have  done — do  not  so 
much  as  speak  to  any  person  in  the  town — but  go  directly  home.' 

27.  And  Jesus  went  out,  and  liis   disciples,  into  tlie 

towns  of  Cesarea  Pliilippi :  and  by  tlie  way  lie  asked  his 

disciples,  saying  nnto  them.  Whom  do  men  say  that  I 

am  ? 

Here  may  be  said  to  begin  a  new  division  of  our  Lord's  official  his- 
tor}',  in  whicli  he  prepared  the  minds  of  his  disciples  for  the  great 
events  before  them  by  imparting  clear  views  of  his  own  mission  as  a 
sufferer.  This  necessary  process  of  instruction  he  begins  by  ascer- 
taining how  far  they  already  recognized  and  understood  his  claims  as 
the  Messiah.  Of  this  interesting  conversation  we  have  three  harmo- 
nious accounts,  Luke  TO,  18)  here  again  becoming  parallel  with  jMark 
and  Matthew  (IG,  13.)  Neither  evangelist  assigns  the  date  of  this 
transaction,  even  by  connecting  it  expressly  with  the  previous  context 
as  immediately  successive.  The  natural  presumption  is,  however, 
in  the  absence  of  all  indications  to  the  contrary,  that  these  disclosures 
followed,  and  most  probabl}'  without  an  interval  of  any  length,  the 
miracles  and  teachings  which  immediately  precede  them  in  the  narra- 
tive. The  place  (not  specified  by  Luke)  is  given  both  by  Mark  and 
Matthew  as  the  region  or  territory  (Matt,  parts,  Mark  Tillages)  of 
Cesarea  Philipjn  (i.  e.  Philip''s  Cesarea.)  This  was  a  cit}-  of  Upper 
Galilee,  near  one  source  of  the  Jordan,  as  the  ancient  Dan  or  Laish 
(Josh.  19.  47.  Judg.  18,  27-29)  occupied  the  other.  It  was  at  the 
foot  of  Hermon  and  was  called  by  the  Greeks  Paneas,  a  word  still 
preserved  by  the  local  tradition  as  the  name  of  a  village  (^Banias)  on 
the  same  site.  To  distinguish  it  from  Cesarea  on  the  sea-coast  {Cesarea 
of  Palestine,  originally  called  Straton''s  Tower),  so  often  mentioned  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  it  received  the  additional  name  Philippi 
{Philip'' s  or  of  Philip)  from  the  tetrarch  of  Iturca  and  Trachonitis 
(Luke  3,  1),  brother  of  Antipas  and  husband  of  Salome  (see  above,  on 
0,  22),  by  whom  it  had  been  rebuilt  or  beautified  and  named  Cesarea 
in  honour  of  Tiberius.  Into  the  villages  or  towns  dependent  upon  this 
important  city  Jesus  came  with  his  disciples,  when  or  whence  is  not 
recorded.  Went  out  throws  no  light  on  this  point,  as  it  may  refer 
to  any  going  forth  for  a.r\y  purpose,  even  from  a  private  house  upon 
a  journey,  or  from  Capernaum  as  the  centre  of  his  o|)erations  on  a 
new  official  circuit,  or  indeed  from  any  place  where  they  had  been 
residing,  whether  for  a  long  or  short  time.  Most  inte)-pret3rs,  how- 
ever, inferring  chi-onological  succession  from  historical  juxtaposition, 
understand  this  to  have  happened  on  a  journey  from  Bethsaida  Julias 
(see  above,  on  v.  22)  to  Cesarea  PhiHppi.  As  a  sample  of  the  mode  in 
which  the  ablest  Germans  harmonize  the  gospels.it  may  here  be  men- 
tioned that  De  Wette  represents  as  a  material  variation  between  Mark 


222  MAR  K  8,  27.  28.  29. 

and  "Matthew,  that  the  latter  speaks  of  Jesus  having  come  to  the  vi- 
cinity of  Ccsarea  when  he  put  this  question,  while  the  former  saj^s  he 
asked  it  in  the  icay  (or  on  the  road)  to  that  place.  Even  if  this  were 
true,  the  usage  of  the  participle  aorist  is  wide  enough  to  cover  any 
discrepancy  thence  arising,  having  come  and  coining  being  almost  con- 
vertible expressions.  But  the  critic  has  himself  fallen  into  the  mistake 
which  he  imputes  to  the  evangelist  by  not  observing  that  in  the  way 
is  mentioned  after  the  arrival  at  Cesarea,  and  refers  not  to  the  jour- 
ney from  Bethsaida  thither,  but  to  his  visitation  of  the  villages  or 
parts  (Matt.  16,  11)  dependent  on  the  former  town  as  a  provincial 
capital.  lie  came  among  those  villages  no  doubt  to  exercise  his  min- 
istry, and  being  in  the  way  or  on  the  road.  i.  e.  travelling  among  them, 
for  this  purpose  he  asked  or  questioned  his  disciples  in  the  words  re- 
corded in  the  last  clause.  This  is  one  of  the  imaginary  discrepancies 
which  even  some  Christian  writers  represent  as  quite  irreconcilable 
without  the  use  of  disingenuous  harmonical  contrivances.  Whom  do 
men  say  (or  declare)  me  to  he  ?  i.  e,  in  relation  to  his  Messianic  claims 
(Matt.  16,  13.)  The  question  refers  not  to  his  enemies  but  to  his  dis- 
ciples in  the  wide  sense,  the  multitudes  or  masses  who  attended  on 
his  ministry  (Luke  9,  18.) 

28.  And  they  answered,  John  the  Baptist  ;  but  some 
(saj),  Elias  ;  and  others,  One  of  the  prophets. 

Their  answer  brings  to  light  the  same  diversity  of  judgment  or 
conjecture  before  mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  ettect  produced  on 
Herod  by  the  miracles  of  Jesus  (6,  14),  but  beginning  with  the  notion 
there  ascribed  to  Antipas  himself,  perhaps  because  it  was  maintained 
in  such  high  places,  or  because  it  had  also  become  dominant  among 
the  people.  Elias.  Elijah  (see  above,  on  6,  15.)  One  of  the  jtrophets^ 
i.  e.  of  the  ancient  or  Old  Testament  prophets  (Luke  9,  19),  either  in 
the  vague  sense  of  mme  one.  or  as  this  sense  of  the  numeral  is  denied 
by  eminent  interpreters,  a  certain  one.  perhaps  Jeremiah  (iMatt.  16, 
14.)  It  seems  from  this  reply  that  notwithstanding  the  impression 
made  by  our  Lord's  miracles  and  teachings,  and  the  convictions  now 
and  then  expressed  of  his  Messiahship,  the  great  mass,  even  of  those 
fiiendly  to  him,  were  disposed  to  look  upon  him  rather  as  the  Mes- 
siah's herald  or  forerunner  than  as  the  Messiah  himself. 

29.  And  he  saith  nnto  them,  But  wliom  say  ye  tliat  I 
am?  And  Peter  answereth  and  saith  nnto  him.  Thou  art 
the  Christ. 

In  contradistinction  from  these  popular  impressions  he  demands  of 
them,  his  personal  attendants  and  moie  confidential  followers,  in  what 
light  they  regarded  him.  As  if  he  had  said,  'these  are  the  vague  ideas 
of  the  multitude;  but  it  is  time  to  draw  the  line  between  them  and 
yourselves  by  making  a  profession  of  your  faith.'  But  ye — whom  do 
ye  say  (or  2)ro?iounce)  me  to  be  ?    Peter  answers  for  the  rest,  not  only 


,  MAKK  8,  29.  30.  31.  223 

from  his  rash  and  forward  disposition,  but  because  he  was  in  fact  their 
spokesman,  recognized  as  such  both  by  his  master  and  his  brethren, 
and  particularly  fitted  for  the  office  by  the  very  disposition  just  re- 
ferred to.  (See  above,  on  3, 16.)  As  Mark  introduces  this  confession 
merely  to  complete  the  chain  of  incidents,  he  gives  Peter's  answer  in 
the  briefest  form,  containing  only  the  essential  proposition,  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Messiah,  which  are  Greek  and  Hebrew  synonymes.  the  an- 
ointed Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  of  Israel  (see  above,  on  1, 1),  while  Luke 
(9. 2( ))  employs  the  more  emphatic  phrase,  the  Christ  of  God^  and  Matthew 
(16, 16)  the  still  more  descriptive  one,  the  Christy  the  son  of  the  lixing 
God.  The  importance  of  this  first  express  acknowledgment  of  Jesus 
as  the  Christ  or  the  Messiah,  even  by  his  own  chosen  followers,  arises 
from  the  fact  that  all  his  public  actions  hitherto  implied  a  claim  to  that 
exalted  character,  and  that  in  consequence  the  truth  of  this  claim  was 
essential  to  the  proof  not  only  of  his  public  mission  but  of  his  personal 
veracity.  The  claim  itself  had  reference  to  the  clear  prediction  of  a 
Great  Deliverer  in  the  ancient  prophecies,  expressly  called  Messiah,  or 
Anointed,  both  by  David  (Ps.  2,  2)  and  by  Daniel  (9,  25).  and  by  im- 
plication so  described  in  all  the  scriptures  which  exhibit  him  as  filling 
the  great  theocratical  offices  of  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,  in  which  the 
previous  incumbents  only  held  his  place  till  he  should  come,  and  to 
which  they  were  set  apart  by  unction,  the  appointed  symbol  of  those 
spiritual  gifts  which  fitted  men  for  these  high  functions,  and  which  he 
was  to  possess  without  measure.  All  this  Jesus  claimed,  and  all  this 
Peter  acknowledged  him  to  be,  not  only  as  a  private  individual  when 
the  truth  was  first  suggested  to  him  by  his  brother  Andrew  (John  1, 
41),  but  now  as  it  were  ex  officio^  in  the  name  of  all  the  twelve,  and  in 
response  to  an  authoritative  question  from  the  Lord  hmiself. 

30.  And  be  charged  them  that  they  should  tell  no  man 
of  him. 

And  he  charged^  them^  not  the  verb  so  rendered  in  5,  43.  7,  36,  but 
that  employed  in  3,  12,  and  there  explained.  Its  original  import  is  to 
estimate  or  value ;  then,  with  special  reference  to  evil  qualities  or  ill 
desert,  to  censure,  blame,  or  disapprove;  then  to  reprove  or  rebuke  in 
word  or  deed ;  and  lastly  to  command  or  to  forbid  on  pain  of  such  dis- 
approbation, Thdt  they  shomld  tell  no  man  (i.  e.  no  one)  (f  him,  what 
they  knew  of  him,  particularly  this  which  they  had  just  confessed 
(Luke  9.  20),  to  wit,  that  he  was  the  Messiah  (Matt.  16,  20.)  This 
l)i-ohibition  is  to  be  explained  upon  the  same  general  yn-inciple  with 
tho.se  addressed  to  evil  spirits  and  to  other  per.sons  whom  he  healed, 
not  as  an  absolute  suppression  of  the  truth,  but  such  a  gradual  dis- 
closure as  might  best  secure  the  great  ends  of  his  advent,  and  especially 
postpone  the  great  catastrophe  for  which  he  came,  till  all  intermediate 
ends  had  been  accomplished. 

31.  And  lie  began  to  teach  them,  that  the  Son  of  man 
must  suffer  many  thmgs,  and  be  rejected  of  the  eldcj's, 


224  MARK  8,  31.  32 


and  (of)  the  chief  priests,  and  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and 
after  three  days  rise  aarain. 

Having  now  drawn  from  them  a  profession  of  their  faith  in  his  jMes- 
siahship.  he  enters  on  the  delicate  and  painful  task  of  teaching  them 
that  although  he  was  the  Messiah  and  by  necessary  consequence  a 
king,  the  manifestation  of  his  royalty  must  be  preceded  not  only  by 
prophetic  but  by  priesttv  functions,  or  in  other  words  that  he  must 
sufler  before  he  reigned  (see  Luke  24,  26.)  This  doctrine  though  dis- 
tinctly taught  by  Daniel  (9,  2G)  and  Isaiah  (53,  4-10),  had  been  gradu- 
ally lost  among  the  Jews  and  was  now  confined  to  that  sinail  class  w^ho 
still  looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem  (Luke  2,  38.)  The  teaching 
even  of  the  Scribes  presented  the  Messiah  as  a  conqueror  and  an  earthly 
monarch,  who  was  to  restore  the  throne  of  David  and  Solomon  and  the 
long  lost  privileges  of  the  chosen  people.  This  delusion  seems  to  have 
been  shared  by  the  apostles,  so  far  as  they  had  any  views  upon  the 
subject,  and  of  this  he  now,  from  this  time  (Matt.  IG.  21)  began  (and 
afterwards  continued)  to  disabuse  them,  by  foretelling  his  various  suf- 
ferings, his  rejection  not  b}''  individuals  but  by  the  nation,  lepre- 
sented  in  the  Sanhediim  by  the  three  great  classes  here  distinctly 
named,  and  lastly,  his  resuscitation  after  three  days,  i.  e.  on  the  third 
day- after  his  decease. 

32.   And  he  spake  that  saying  openly.     And   Peter 
took  him  and  bes-an  to  rebnke  him. 

And  he  spnle  the  saying  ojjenly^  i.  e.  for  the  first  time.  He  had 
taught  all  this  by  implication  and  by  indirection,  but  he  now  disclosed 
it  by  explicit  affirmation.  We  have  here  another  indication  that  the 
point  which  we  have  reached  is  one  of  critical  importance,  a  decisive 
juncture  in  the  Gospel  History  or  Life  of  Christ.  The  word  translated 
opcidij  is  not  in  form  an  adverb  but  a  noun,  which  according  to  its 
etj-mology  and  usage  denotes  freedom  of  speech,  not  only  boldness  as 
opposed  to  cowardly  reserve,  but  fiankness,  as  opposed  to  all  conceal- 
ment. It  is  here  applied  to  Christ's  explicit  statement  of  his  death  and 
resurrection  as  not  only  an  essential  part,  but  the  essential  part,  the 
essence,  of  his  saving  work,  contrasted  with  the  more  obscure  and 
enigmatical  suggestion  of  the  same  truth  hitherto.  The  eifect  upon 
Peter,  though  denounced  by  some  as  improbable  and  inconsistent  with 
his  pievious  confession,  is  one  of  the  most  natural  and  lifelike  incidents 
recorded  in  the  scriptures.  xVffectionate  and  ardent,  but  capricious  and 
precipitate,  imperfectly  instructed  even  in  the  great  truth  wliich  he  had 
avowed  in  behalf  of  his  brethren  and  himself,  and  no  doubt  elated 
above  measure  by  the  pi-aise  or  rather  blessing  which  the  Lord  had 
just  bestowed  upon  him,  althougli  only  in  his  representative  capacity 
(Matt.  17,  10),  he  could  not  have  betrayed  his  own  infirmitj'  in  one 
act  more  completel}'^  than  in  that  recorded  here  by  Mark  and  Matthew 
(10,  22.)  Taking  Mm  to  (himself,  or  aside),  as  if  to  speak  with  him 
in  private,  not   by  the  hand,  which  would   be  otherwise  expressed. 


MARK  8,  32.  33.  225 

With  onr  habitual  associations,  it  may  not  be  easy  to  see  any  thino;  in 
this  procedure  but  absurd  and  arrogant  presumption,  which  has  led 
some  to  reject  it  as  incredible.  But  when  we  take  into  consideration 
all  the  circumstances  just  suggested,  and  transport  ourselves  into  the 
midst  of  them,  as  Peter  was  surrounded  by  them,  we  may  see  that  the 
extraordinary  scene  presented  in  this  passage,  although  one  which  no 
fictitious  writer  would  have  dreamed  of.  and  which  could  not  be  the 
friiit  of  any  mj'thical  process,  is  nevertheless  exquisitely  true  to  nature, 
both  to  that  of  man  in  general  and  to  that  of  Peter  in  particular. 
Began  to  rehuTce  (or  cMde  liim)^  as  a  friend  entitled  to  such  freedom, 
for  indulging  such  unnecessary  fears  and  glooni}^  apprehensions.  lie 
'began  to  do  this  in  the  words  preserved  by  Matthew  (IG,  22),  but  was 
cut  short  by  one  of  the  severest  answers  ever  uttered,  which  effectually 
taught  him  his  mistake  and  brought  him  to  his  senses. 

33.  But  when  lie  had  turned  abont  and  looked  on  his 
disciples,  he  rebuked  Peter,  saying,  Get  thee  behind  me, 
Satan  :  for  thou  savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God, 
but  tlie  thino's  that  be  of  men. 

But  lie  (the  Son  of  Man,  thus  corrected  and  patronized  by  one  of 
his  own  followers)  turning  iqyon  (him),  which  appears  to  be  the  force 
of  the  emphatic  compound  here  emploj'ed,  and  loohlng  at  his  (other) 
disciples^  or  rather  in  the  act  of  turning  upon  Peter  seeing  the  disciples, 
who,  as  usual  were  following  their  master,  and  resolved  to  check  the 
growth  of  such  a  spirit  in  the  body,  he  rehiiked  Peter  in  his  turn,  thus 
retorting,  throwing  back  to  him.  the  censure  which  he  had  presump- 
tuously cast  upon  his  Lord  and  jNIaster.  Get  thee  (literally  go.  begone) 
hehind  me,  out  of  my  sight,  away  from  ine  !  These  words  are  not  onl}'- 
the  same  in  both  accounts  of  this  transaction,  but  identical  with  those 
pronovmced  by  Christ  to  Satan  in  the  wilderness,  according  to  the  com- 
mon text  of  Luke  (4,  8).  and  according  to  the  latest  text  of  Matthew 
(4,  10.)  This  coincidence  aifords  a  key  to  the  true  meaning  of  this 
sharp  apostrophe,  as  not  a  mere  expression  of  abhorrence  or  contempt, 
but  a  specific  charge  of  imitating  Satan  as  the  tempter,  and  endeavour- 
ing to  draAV  his  master  back  from  the  very  thing  for  which  he  came 
into  the  world,  and  for  which  his  three  3-ears'  ministry  was  but  a  prep- 
aration. As  if  he  had  said,  '  AYhat,  is  Satan  come  again  to  tempt  me, 
as  he  did  of  old  ?  x\ vaunt  thou  adversary,  get  thee  hence  !'  Then 
addressing  the  astonished  and  no  doubt  affrighted  Peter,  in  his  own 
person,  he  describes  the  cause  of  the  mistake  which  he  had  just  made. 
Savourest,  an  obscure  English  word,  and  expressing  an  idea  not  con- 
tained in  the  original,  which  means  thou  mitidest,  carest  for,  including 
both  the  thoughts  and  the  affections.  (Compare  Rom.  8,  5.  1  Cor.  4, 
6.  Gal.  5, 10.  Phil.  3, 10.  Col.  3,  2.)  The  things  that  be  of  God,  &c., 
in  the  original  is  simply,  tJte  (things)  of  God,  the  (things)  of  man.  i.  e. 
their  respective  interests,  affairs,  or  claims.  The  meaning  of  the  sen- 
tence seems  to  be,  'you  look  only  at  the  human  side  of  these  transac- 
10* 


226  MARK  8,  33.  34.  35. 

tions,  and  regard  m}'-  death  as  a  mere  instance  of  mortality  like  that  of 
other  men.  to  be  averted  as  a  great  calamit}',  whereas  it  is  the  means 
which  God  has  chosen  and  appointed  for  the  satisfaction  of  his  broken 
law  and  the  salvation  of  his  elect  people.' 

34.  And  wlien  lie  had  called  the  people  (unto  him) 
with  his  disciples  also,  he  said  unto  them.  Whosoever  will 
come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up  his 
cross,  and  follow  me. 

And  having  called  the  crowd  to  (him)  with  his  disciples  (who  were 
previously  near  him),  so  that  also  is  improperly  supplied  by  the  trans- 
lators. Some  affect  to  find  a  contradiction  in  this  mention  of  a  crowd, 
when  he  had  previously  been  speaking  privately  to  his  disciples,  and 
according  to  Luke  (9,  18),  praying  with  them  by  themselves.  But  this 
objection  overlooks  the  fact,  which  we  have  had  occasion  more  than  once 
to  mention,  that  the  multitude  was  never  verj'  far  off,  even  when  our  Lord 
was  most  retired  ;  that  his  most  confidential  conversations  with  the 
twelve  were  held  in  sight  though  not  in  hearing  of  the  people  ;  and  that 
nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  his  teaching  than  the  way  in  which  he 
used  to  turn  in  quick  succession  from  a  larger  to  a  smaller  or  from  a 
smaller  to  a  larger  circle.  The  reason  of  his  doing  so  on  this  occasion 
is,  that  what  he  had  to  say  was  universally  appi'opriate  and  binding, 
having  reference  to  no  official  rights  or  duties,  but  to  the  very  terms  on 
which  he  would  admit  men  to  his  service.  The  connection  with  what 
goes  before  is,  that  although  the  disciples  were  surprised  to  hear  that 
he  must  suffer,  they  must  now  prepare  to  sufiisr  too,  the  members  with 
the  head.  Whosoever  (without  any  exception  or  reserve)  will  (i.  e. 
wishes  or  desires  to)  come  after  (i.  e.  follow)  me  (as  my  dependent  and 
adherent),  not  in  public  station  merely  but  among  the  humblest  classes 
of  my  people.  Let  lilia  deny  (i.  e.  renounce,  abjure)  himself  (as  the 
great  object  of  regard),  and  let  him  tcike  iqi  his  cross,  not  merely  a  pros- 
pective or  prophetic  allusion  to  the  mode  of  his  own  death,  but  a  refer- 
ence to  the  common  practice  of  compelling  malefactors  to  convey  their 
own  cross  to  the  place  of  execution.  Crucifixion  being  commonly  re- 
garded as  at  once  the  most  painful  and  disgraceful  way  of  dying,  is  here 
put  fur  the  worst  form  of  suffering,  and  carrying  the  cross  for  humble, 
patient  submission  to  it.  And  let  him  follow  me,  not  merely  in  the 
general  sense  of  service  or  the  special  sense  of  imitation,  but  in  that  of 
suffering  with  and  like  another.  As  if  he  had  said,  "let  him  follow  me 
to  Golgotha.' 

35.  For  whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it ;  but 
wdiosoever  shall  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gosjjel's, 
the  same  shall  save  it. 

This  requisition  is  so  utterly  repugnant  to  the  natural  love  of  life 
that  it  might  seem  like  exhorting  men  to  self-destruction.     In  reality 


MARK   8,  35.  3G.  37.  227 


however  it  is  only  calling  them  to  sacrifice  a  lesser  for  a  greater  good. 
Lose  is  a  much  stronger  word  in  Greek  and  means  destroy,  the  true 
antithesis  to  save  in  this  connection.  The  form  of  the  sentence  is  pro- 
verbial and,  as  in  many  other  cases  of  the  same  kind,  uses  the  same 
word  in  two  senses,  or  rather  in  a  higher  and  a  lower  application  of  the 
same  sense.  Life  is  the  correct  translation  in  both  clauses,  but  the 
life  referred  to  very  different.  Whosoever  will  (is  willing,  wishes  to) 
save  his  life  (i.  e.  his  natural  life,  or  the  life  of  his  body,  for  its  own 
sake,  as  the  highest  good  to  be  secured  or  sought)  tcill  (by  that  very 
act  not  only  lose  but)  destroy  it.  He  cannot  perpetuate  his  life  on 
earth,  and  by  refusing  to  look  higher,  forfeits  life  in  heaven.  The  con- 
verse is  then  stated  as  no  less  true  and  important.  Whosoever  loses  or 
destroys  (i.  e.  allows  to  be  destroyed  if  needful)  his  life  (in  the  lower 
sense  before  explained)  for  my  sake  (in  my  service  and  at  my  com- 
mand), not  only  now  while  I  am  present  upon  earth,  but  even  after  my 
departure,  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel,  the  diffusion  of  the  truth  and  the 
erection  of  m}^  kingdom,  he  shall  save  his  life  in  losing  it.,  or  only  lose 
it  in  a  lower  sense  to  save  it  in  the  highest  sense  conceivable.  The  dif- 
ficult}^ of  distinguishing  precisely  between  life  and  life  in  this  extraor- 
dinary dictum  only  shows  that  the  difference  is  rather  of  degree  than 
kind,  and  instead  of  weakening  strengthens  the  impression. 

36.  For  wliat  sliall  it  profit  a  man,  if  he  shall  gain  the 
whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ? 

The  loss  in  the  case  supposed  is  therefore  no  loss,  as  the  gain  in  the 
other  case  is  no  gain.  The  terms  are  chosen  from  the  dialect  of  ordi 
nary  secular  business.  What  icill  it  jprofit  a  man,  what  will  he  gain, 
on  ordinary  principles  of  value  or  exchange,  if  he  gain,  acquire,  in  the 
usual  commercial  sense,  the  whole  world,  that  is,  all  that  it  canofleras 
an  object  of  attraction  or  desire,  the  aggregate,  sum  total,  of  enjo^-ment, 
whetiier  sensual,  ambitious,  intellectual,  pecuniary,  and  lose  (a  most 
emphatic  passive  form,  be  made  to  lose,  be  injured,  ruined,  with  respect 
to)  his  oicn  soul,  the  word  before  translated  life,  but  here  denoting 
rather  that  which  lives,  enjoys  and  suffers.  What  are  enjoyments  if 
there  is  no  one  to  enjoy  them,  if  the  man  himself  is  lost,  i.  e.  lost  to 
happiness  forever  ? 

37.  Or  what  shall  a  man  mve  in  exchange  for  his 
soul  i 

He  pursues  the  awful  supposition  further,  to  the  verge  of  paradox 
and  contradiction,  but  with  terrible  advantage  to  the  force  of  this 
transcendent  argument.  Suppose  a  man  to  lose  his  soul,  his  life,  him- 
self, in  the  sense  before  explained,  how  shall  he  recover  it,  redeem  it, 
bu}'  it  back  again,  by  giving  an  equivalent  in  value  ?  There  is  some- 
thing un^^jieakabl}'  impressive  in  this  method  of  suggesting  the  impor- 
tance of  eternal  interests,  by  supposing  the  very  life  or  soul  itself  to  be 
(ost  to  the  possessor  and  an  effort  made  to  buy  it  back,  and  then  pro- 


228  MARK  8,  37.  38. 

pounding  the  question,  where  is  the  equivalent,  or  how  shall  it  be  ren- 
dered ?  It  is  true  that  when  the  soul,  or  its  eternal  life,  is  lost,  there 
is  no  one  to  attempt  its  restoration,  for  the  subject  or  possessor  is  lost 
with  it.  But  this  is  only  stating  in  another  form  the  ver}'  truth  which 
Christ  is  here  propounding,  that  a  man  may  lose  his  present  life  and 
yet  live  on  and  have  a  better  life  in  lieu  of  it ;  but  when  he  loses  his 
eternal  life,  he  is  liimself  lost,  lost  forever,  and  the  thought  of  compen- 
sation or  recovery  involves  a  contradiction. 

38.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  be  asliamecl  of  me,  and 
of  mj  words,  in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation,  of 
him  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed,  when  he  com- 
eth  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels. 

Theref&re  seems,  to  introduce  an  inference  or  consequence  from  what 
had  just  been  said ;  but  this  is  neither  the  true  version  nor  the  true 
connection.  For  assigns  the  reason  of  something  pi-eviously  mentioned 
or  suggested,  which  is  here  a  thought  to  be  supplied  from  the  preceding 
context,  although  not  expressed,  to  wit,  tliat  this  appalling  dispropor- 
tion of  loss  and  gain,  far  from  being  a  chimera  or  a  vain  imagination, 
was  one  which  all  the  hearers  of  our  Lord  were  liable  to  realize  or 
verif}'^  in  their  o\A'n  experience.  For  ichosoever  (without  any  distinc- 
tion as  to  class  or  person)  shall  he  (or  rather  is,  referring  not  to  future 
cases  merely  but  including  them)  ashamed  of  me  (i.  e.  unwilling  from 
regard  to  men's  opinions  and  authority  to  own  me  as  his  Lord  and 
master)  and  my  icords  (doctrines,  precepts,  and  discourses,  as  his  own 
belief,  as  true  and  certain),  also  the  Son  of  Man  (he  who  now  appears 
in  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  of  whom  on  that  account  he  is  ashamed) 
tcill  he  ashamed  of  him  (i.  e.  will  treat  him  in  like  manner,  will  disown, 
reject  him)  ichen  he  comes  in  glory  (with  a  majest}'^  the  opposite  of 
what  you  now  behold,  not  his  own  glor}'-  merely  but)  the  glory  of  his 
Father  icith  the  holy  angels  (as  distinguished  from  the  fallen)  whose 
reflected  glorj^  will  enhance  that  from  which  it  is  derived  (Luke  9,  26.) 
In  other  words,  the  day  is  coming  when  our  relative  positions  are  to  be 
reversed,  when  the  glory  will  be  mine  and  the  shame  theirs  who  once 
despised  me ;  when  the  question  will  no  longer  be  whether  they  shall 
be  ashamed  of  me,  but  whether  I  will  be  ashamed  of  them. 


-•♦♦- 


CIIAPTEE  IX. 

After  a  sentence  which  belongs  to  the  preceding  context  (1),  Mark 
continues  his  account  of  the  way  in  which  our  Lord  prepared  his  fol- 
lowers for  the  great  catastrophe  now  drawing  near.  Having  announced 
his  death  and  resurrection,  with  a  solemn  warning  against  certain  fatal 


MARK  9,  1.  220 

errors,  he  encourages  and  animates  three  of  their  number  by  a  momen- 
tary glimpse  of  the  glory  in  reserve  for  him,  to  which  they  are  admitted 
as  witnesses  from  the  earth,  as  Moses  and  Elijah  are  from  heaven  (2-8.) 
This  Transtiguration,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  culminating  point 
of  Christ's  prophetic  ministry  on  earth,  affords  occasion  for  an  impor- 
tant conversation  on  the  predicted  advent  of  Elijah  (9-13.)  On  their 
return  from  this  stupendous  spectacle,  our  Lord  performs  a  miracle 
which  Mark  records,  not  merely  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  greatness, 
but  because  the  nine  apostles,  in  the  absence  of  their  master,  had  in 
vain  endeavoured  to  expel  the  demon,  which  affords  occasion  for  some 
new  and  extraordinary  teachings  (14-29.)  This  failure,  at  a  time  when 
they  were  soon  to  be  deprived  of  his  visible  presence  and  assistance, 
naturally  leads  him  to  predict  anew  that  great  event,  but  with  no  im- 
mediate effect  except  to  frighten  and  perplex  them  (30-32.)  That 
their  mental  state  was  still  a  darkened  and  debased  one,  the  historian 
now  further  shows  by  the  humiliating  record  of  their  strife  for  the  pre- 
eminence, and  of  their  master's  tenderness  and  wisdom  in  appeasing  it 
(33-37.)  In  the  same  conversation,  he  instructs  them  as  to  the  rela- 
tion borne  to  him  and  them  by  other  true  believers,  and  the  danger  of 
offending  such  (38—12.)  By  a  natural  and  obvious  association,  he  ex- 
pands this  warning  into  one  against  all  causes  of  temptation  or  offence, 
which  he  winds  up  with  an  enigmatical  but  solemn  exhortation  first  to 
purity  and  then  to  peace  (43-50.)  This  synopsis  of  the  chapter  will 
suffice  to  show  that  its  topics  are  not  thrown  together  at  random,  or 
as  desultory  anecdotes  and  reminiscences,  but  linked  by  a  natural  as- 
sociation, which  in  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  by  a  happy  concurrence, 
is  both  logical  and  chronological ;  that  is  to  say,  by  simply  following 
the  order  of  events,  the  writer  accomplishes  his  main  design  of  charac- 
terizing Christ's  pecuHar  method  of  preparing  his  disciples  for  ap- 
proacliing  changes.  As  compared  w^th  the  parallel  accounts,  xMark's 
narrative  is  here  distinguished  by  its  usual  vividness  and  fulness  of 
detail,  and  by  the  striking  but  harmonious  contrast  in  which  he  ex- 
hibits our  Lord's  goodness  and  severity,  especially  the  sternness  of  his 
warnings  against  all  unnecessary  rigour  on  the  part  of  his  disciples. 

1.  And  lie  said  unto  tliem,  Yerilj,  I  say  unto  you, 
That  there  be  some  of  them  that  stand  liere  which  shall 
not  taste  of  death,  till  they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of  God 
come  with  power. 

It  is  a  curious  instance  of  the  careless  or  arbitrary  way  in  which  the 
text  has  been  divided  (see  the  Introduction),  that  this  verse,  which 
is  the  conclusion  of  the  previous  discourse  and  in  Matthew  ends  a  chap- 
ter (10,  28).  here  begins  one,  while  in  Luke  it  is  almost  exactly  in  the 
middle  (9,  27),  though  in  all  three  cases  the  connection  is  identical. 
The  verse  itself  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  and  disputed  in  the  whole 
book,  though  the  question  is  rather  one  of  application  than  essential 
meaning.     J.wid/?,  verily,  assuredly  (see  above,  on  3,28.  6,11.  8,12), 


230  MARK  9,  1,  2. 

/  say  unto  you,  with  emphasis  on  both  the  pronouns,  /(the  Son  of 
jNIan)  to  you  (my  confidential  followers.)  There  he,  not  a  subjunctive 
but  an  old  indicative  form  equivalent  precisely  to  the  modern  are. 
Some  of  those  here  standing^  i.  e.  of  the  twelve  then  present  and  imme- 
diately addressed,  or  of  the  crowd  referred  to  in  8,  34.  Which,  applied 
in  old  English  both  to  things  and  persons,  but  confined  to  the  former 
in  modern  usage,  which  would  here  require  who.  Shall  not,  a  pecu- 
liarly strong  negative  in  Greek,  the  aorist  subjunctive  with  the  particle 
{ixj])  suggesting  the  idea,  that  the}'-  neither  could,  would,  nor  should  do 
what  the  verb  expresses.  Taste  of  death,  i.  e.  experience  or  partake 
of  it,  considered  as  a  portion  or  a  draught  administered  by  God  to  man 
(see  below,  on  10,  38.  14,  30.)  Though  the  form  of  expression  here  is 
highly  metaphorical,  it  can  be  referred  to  nothing  but  the  literal  de- 
cease of  persons  actually  present.  This  restricts  the  meaning  of  what 
follows  to  a  single  treneration  or  a  single  life-time,  thouah  it  may  have 
been  a  long  one.  Till  they  haxe  seen  (or  see,  behold,  or  witness)  the 
Mngdom  of  God,  i,  e.  of  the  Messiah  as  a  divine  person,  or  at  least  as  a 
divine  conmiissioner  and  representative.  (See  above,  on  1, 14. 15.  4. 
11.26.  30.)  Come,  not.  as  the  English  words  may  seem  to  mean,  in 
the  act  of  coming  (till  they  see  it  come),  but  actually  or  already  come, 
the  only  sense  that  can  be  put  upon  the  perfect  participle  here  em- 
ployed. The  idea  that  they  should  see  it  coming,  i.  e.  when  or  as  it 
came,  is  rather  excluded,  in  accordance  with  our  Lord's  words  else- 
where (Luke  17,20),  and  not  at  variance  with  the  present  participle 
here  employed  by  Matthew  (IG,  28),  which  relates  not  to  the  kingd-om 
but  to  Christ  himself  In  poicer,  an  expression  here  preserved  by 
Mark  alone,  i.  e.  with  accompanying  manifestation  of  omnipotent  au- 
thority. The  essential  meaning,  as  to  which  there  can  be  no  dispute, 
is  that  before  all  then  present  should  be  dead,  there  would  be  some 
convincing  proof  that  the  Messiah's  kingdom  had  been  actually  set  up, 
as  predicted  by  the  prophets  and  by  Christ  himself.  The  only  doubt 
or  (iilTerence  of  opinion  is  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  this  evidence, 
or  tlie  particular  event  by  which  it  was  to  be  atibrded.  The  solutions 
of  this  question  which  have  been  proposed  are  objectionable,  chiefly 
because  too  exclusive  and  restrictive  of  the  promise  to  a  single  point 
of  time,  whereas  it  really  has  reference  to  a  gradual  or  progressive 
change,  the  institution  of  Christ's  kingdom  in  the  hearts  of  men  and  in 
society  at  large,  of  which  protracted  process  the  two  salient  points  are 
the  effusion  of  the  Sj^irit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  centur}'-  later,  between  which 
points,  as  those  of  its  inception  and  its  consummation,  lies  the  lingering 
ileath  of  the  ^losaic  dispensation,  and  the  gradual  erection  of  Messiah's 
kingdom. 

2.  And  after  six  days,  Jesus  taketli  (with  him)  Peter, 
and  James,  and  John,  and  leadeth  them  up  into  an  high 
mountain  apart  hy  themselves ;  and  jic  was  transfigured 
before  them. 


MARK  9,  2.  231 

The  preceding  verse,  although  unduly  severed  from  its  previous  con- 
text, is  really  in  place  here,  as  a  transition  or  a  link  of  connection  be- 
tween Christ's  remarkable  discourse  as  to  his  coming,  and  the  history 
of  his  transfiguration.  The  critical  character  of  this  occurrence,  and 
the  rapid  progress  of  events  succeeding  it,  are  here  apparent  on  the  sur- 
face of  the  narrative.  After  the  solemn  recognition  of  our  Lord  by  his 
disciples  as  the  true  Messiah  (8,  29),  and  the  solemn  announcement 
that  he  was  to  suffer  in  that  character  (8,  31),  something  further  of 
the  same  kind  might  almost  have  been  expected  a  j)riori.  i.  e.  some  ex- 
traordinary manifestation  of  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah,  if  not  to  the 
multitude,  at  least  to  his  disciples,  or  if  not  to  all  these,  to  the  twelve 
apostles,  or  if  not  to  all  these,  to  a  chosen  few,  who  were  admitted  to 
a  more  intimate  and  confidential  intercourse.  Such  a  disclosure  would 
in  some  sense  correspond  to  the  manifestations  and  solemn  recognitions 
in  his  infancy,  preserved  by  Luke  (2,  25-32.  38)  and  iMatthew  (2,  L  11), 
but  not  included  in  the  scope  of  Mark's  biography  (see  above,  on  1.  1.) 
In  accordance  with  this  antecedent  probability,  we  hnd  such  a  manifes- 
tation here  recorded  by  the  three  evangelists,  with  more  precision  as  to 
time  than  place.  The  apparent  disagreement  between  the  eight  days 
of  Luke  (9,  28)  and  the  six  days  of  Mark  and  Matthew  (17,  1),  may  be 
reconciled  in  either  of  two  ways ;  first,  by  understanding  one  or  both 
expressions  as  an  idiomatic  designation  of  a  week,  corresponding  to  the 
French  and  German  use  of  eight  and  fifteen  days  to  signify  a  week 
and  fortnight;  an  idiom  of  which  there  is  a  clear  trace  in  the  English 
phrase,  an  eight  days  (Luke  9.  28).  meaning  not  merely  so  many  de- 
tached days,  but  a  definite  and  well-known  period.  The  other  solu- 
tion is  that  neither  of  the  numbers  is  exclusive  of  the  other,  since  eight 
days^  even  in  the  strict  sense,  would  be  after  six  days,  and  six  days^  in 
the  strict  sense,  might  be  popularly  spoken  of  as  ahout  {or  almost)  eight 
days.  Either  of  these  solutions  is  more  natural  and  simple  than  the 
silly  supposition  of  a  glaring  contradiction,  unobserved  by  ancient 
readers,  whether  friends  or  fOes,  and  handed  down  without  correction 
or  detection  for  a  course  of  ages,  to  be  finally  discovered  by  the  micro- 
scopic criticism  of  some  modern  sceptical  interpreter.  In  all  such  cases, 
we  should  look  not  only  at  the  difficulties  charged  upon  the  narrative 
it.self,  but  also  upon  those  by  which  the  supposition  of  a  blunder  or  a 
discrepancy  is  encumbered.  Tahes,  the  same  verb  used  by  all  the 
three  evangelists,  and  strictly  meaning  ta]t:es  along,  or  with  him,  as 
companions  or  associates  (see  above,  on  4,36.  5.  4ti.)  Peter,  James, 
and  John,  his  brother  (Matt.  17,  1),  wdio  formed  a  sort  of  inner  circle 
even  within  the  sphere  of  the  apostleship.  They  were  among  our  Sa- 
viour's first  acquaintances  after  his  public  appearance,  among  the  first 
called  to  his  special  service,  all  Galileans  and  all  fishermen,  the  same 
three  who  were  admitted  to  the  house  of  Jairus  (see  above,  on  5,  37), 
and  wdio  afterwards  were  with  him  in  Gethsemane  (see  below,  on 
14,  33.)  This  distinguishing  honour,  by  elating  them  unduly,  may 
have  led  to  the  ambitious  errors  into  which  they  jointly  or  severally 
fell  (see  below,  on  10,  35.)  But  this,  though  certainly  foreseen,  did 
not  deter  our  Lord  from  making  use  of  them  in  this  way,  any  more 


232  MARK  9,  2. 

than  his  perfect  kno\vledj2;e  of  Iscariot  prevented  his  admis'jion  for  a 
time  into  the  apostolic  body.  Indeed  it  is  characteiistic  of  the  sacred 
history,  from  Genesis  to  Acts,  that  its  object  is  to  glorify  not  man  but 
God,  by  showing  his  sovereign  independence  in  the  choice  of  his  own 
instruments,  and  even  in  the  case  of  the  most  honoured,  such  as  Noah, 
Abraham,  Jacob,  Moses,  David,  Hezekiah,  and  Josiah,  lifting  the  veil 
from  their  infirmities  and  showing  how  their  very  sins  were  overruled 
by  God  for  the  promotion  of  his  own  ends,  without  any  imputation  on 
his  holiness  or  the  least  extenuation  of  their  guilt,  which  was  commonly 
attended  by  unquestionable  providential  retributions.  LeadetJi,  brings, 
conducts,  mto  a  liigli  mountain,  which  agreeably  to  usage  (see  above, 
on  3,  13.  5,  11.  6,  46),  might  be  understood  to  mean  the  highlands  as 
distinguished  from  the  plains  of  the  interior  or  the  sea-coast,  but  is 
here  most  generally  understood  to  mean  a  particular  eminence  or 
mountain  in  the  proper  sense,  which  seems  indeed  to  be  required  by  the 
indefinite  expression,  a  high  mountain,  not  the  mountain,  as  in  the 
places  just  referred  to.  The  mountain  is  not  named  or  otherwise  de- 
scribed, and  is  therefore  now  unknown.  Ecclesiastical  tradition  has 
identified  it  with  i\Iount  Tabor  (Josh.  10,  22.  Judg.  4,  G.  8,  ]8.  Ps.  89, 
13.  Jer.  4G,  18.  Hos.  5,  1),  as  the  highest  peak  in  Galilee,  while  some 
modern  writers  place  it  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Cesarca  Philippi,  the 
last  localit}^  previously  mentioned  (8.  27.)  But  it  is  not  likely  that 
the  intervening  six  or  eight  days  were  all  spent  at  one  place,  and  if  not, 
a  whole  week's  travel  might  have  carried  him  entirely  away  from  that 
vicinity.  The  precise  place  therefore  must  be  left  unsettled,  though  the 
local  tradition,  when  intrinsically  credible,  and  not  contravened  from 
any  other  quarter,  may  be  rested  in  as  giving  more  precision  to  the 
narrative.  Apart,  in  private,  by  themselves  (as  in  G,  31.  32.  7.  33, 
above),  which  expression  is  then  made  still  stronger  by  the  added 
word,  alone,  as  if  to  intimate  that  this  was  not  one  of  the  manv  in- 
stances in  which  our  Lord  was  only  partiall}^  secluded,  with  a  multi- 
tude in  sight  or  near  at  hand,  but  one  of  literal  seclusion  from  all  com- 
pany except  that  of  the  three  apostles.  Transjigured,  transformed,  a 
Greek  verb  only  found  in  later  writers,  such  as  Ari-ian  and  Athena3us. 
The  cognate  noun  (jnetamorphosis)  is  used  in  the  title  of  Ovid's  famous 
poem,  where  it  means  a  liteial  (though  not  a  real)  change  of  shape. 
As  the  primitive  noun,  however,  is  emj^loycd  by  the  best  Gieek  wiiters, 
not  merely  in  the  sense  of  shape  or  figure,  but  in  that  of  general  ap- 
pearance, the  verb  may  be  so  taken  in  the  case  before  us,  i.  e.  as  denot- 
ing not  a  change  of  person,  such  as  to  destroy  his  visible  identity,  but 
merelva  transcendant  dignity  and  splendour,  as  described  more  fully  in 
the  next  verse.  Before  them,  properly,  in  front  of  them,  and  then  b}'- 
necessary  implication,  in  their  sight,  implj'ing  that  they  saw,  not  only 
the  effect,  but  the  process  which  produced  it,  so  that  there  was  no 
rooin  for  illusion  or  mistake.  It  is  also  suggested'  by  this  i)hrase  that 
they  were  not  chance-witnesses  of  this  great  spectacle,  but  taken  with 
him  for  the  purpose;  that  he  went  up  to  the  mountain-top,  not  only  to 
be  there  transjigured,  but  to  be  transfigured  he/ore  them.  Luke,  to 
whom  we  chiefly  owe    the  notices  which  we    possess  of  our  Lord's 


MARK   9,  2.  3.  233 

devotional  habits  (see  Luke  3,21.  5,16.  6,12.  9,18.28.  11, 1),  adds 
here  the  interesting  fact  that  he  was  praying  when  this  change  took 
place,  as  he  was  praying  when  the  previous  attestation  came  from 
heaven  at  his  baptism,  as  recorded  by  the  same  evangelist. 

3.  And  Ills  raiment  became  shining;,  exceeding  white 
as  snow,  so  as  no  fuller  on  earth  can  white  them. 

This  verse  describes  the  metamorphosis  or  transfiguration,  as  it  ap- 
peared to  the  disciples.  Mark  confines  his  formal  description  to  the 
garments,  without  expressly  mentioning  the  change  in  his  countenance 
spoken  of  by  Matthew  (17,  2)  and  Luke  (9,  29),  which,  however,  is  in- 
cluded in  the  general  idea  of  effulgence  overspreading  and  surrounding 
the  whole  ])erson.  It  is  very  remarkable,  indeed,  that  these  descrip- 
tions should  be  ail  so  strong,  so  various,  yet  so  harmonious,  as  if  each 
of  the  eye-witnesses  had  furnished  an  account  of  his  own  impressions 
of  the  same  glorious  object  at  the  same  eventful  moment.  Iiaiment^ 
in  Gi'eek  a  plural  form  corresponding  to  our  clotJies^hni  in  the  singular 
denoting  the  outer  garment  of  the  oriental  dress  (see  above,  on  5, 
28.)  Became,  the  true  sense  of  the  Greek  verb,  which  is  often  con- 
founded with  the  verb  to  he.  Shining,  a  still  more  expressive  term  in 
the  original,  applied  by  Homer  to  the  glistening  of  polished  surfaces 
and  to  the  glittering  of  arms,  hj  Aristotle  to  the  twinkling  of  the  stars, 
and  by  Euripides  to  the  flashing  of  lightning,  which  last  idea  Luke  (9, 
29)  expresses  by  a  different  verb.  White  exceedingly  as  snow,  a  poeti- 
cal expression,  even  in  its  form,  and  even  in  translation,  when  the  order 
of  the  words  is  left  unchanged.  The  comparative  phrase  (as  snow)  is 
not  found,  however,  in  the  Vatican  and  several  other  very  ancient 
manuscripts,  though  some  of  the  same  class  contain  it.  The  word 
translated  tchite  means  originally  clear  and  bright,  as  applied  by  Homer 
to  pore  water,  the  sense  of  colour  being  secondary  and  indefinite,  com- 
prehending a  variety  of  shades  from  gray  to  pure  white.  Here  the 
word  no  doubt  expresses  more  than  the  mere  neutral  sense  of  white- 
ness, namely,  that  of  an  eff'ulgent  white  light  without  shade  or  spot; 
but  that  the  notion  of  colour  was  meant  to  be  conveyed  at  the  same 
time,  is  clear  from  the  comparison  that  follows.  So  as  (or.  retaining 
the  strict  sense  of  the  original,  such  as^  i.  e.  such  garments  as)  a  fuller^ 
i.  e.  any  fuller,  cloth-dresser,  literall}^,  carder,  one  who  cleansed  woollen 
cloth  by  carding  or  combing  it.  On,  the  earth  iwiy  either  be  a  strong 
universal  expression,  meaning  in  the  world,  in  the  universe,  in  exist- 
ence, or  contain  a  more  specific  reference  to  the  hcavenl}^  source  from 
which  alone  such  brightness  could  proceed.  Cannot.,  is  not  able,  to 
white  (or  whiten.,  i.  e.  to  produce  such  whiteness);  the  addition  of  the 
pronoun  (them)  is  not  only  needless  but  enfeebling  by  gratuitous  restric- 
tion of  the  meaninir.  What  is  said  is  not  merely  that  no  fuller  upon 
earth  could  whiten  those  clothes  so,  but  that  no  one  could  produce  such 
whiteness.  This  comparison,  though  diawn  from  a  familiar  process  of 
a  homely  art  (sec  above,  on  3,  21),  is  intelligible  and  expressive.  es[)e- 
cially  if  we  suppose  it  to  include  the  operation  of  bleachingj  which  was 


234  MARK  9,  3.  4. 


probably  performed  by  the  same  persons.  It  was  no  doubt  the  analogy 
which  came  into  the  mind  of  Peter,  as  he  gazed  upon  his  masters  ves- 
ture, and  was  afterwards  employed  by  him  in  telling  what  he  saw, 
when  at  liberty  to  do  so  (see  below,  on  v.  9,  and  compare  2  Pet.  1, 
lG-18.) 

4.  And  there  appeared  Tinto  them  Elias  with  Moses ; 
and  thej  were  talking  with  Jesus. 

Besides  this  dazzling  change  in  Christ's  appearance,  the  disciples 
were  permitted  to  behold  what  might  be  called  a  glorious  apparition, 
did  not  the  usage  of  that  term  necessarily  suggest  the  idea  of  something 
unreal,  an  appearance  without  substance ;  whereas  the  one  here  men- 
tioned is  described  as  no  less  real  than  that  of  the  disciples  or  their 
master.  Blias,  the  Greek  name  of  Elijah  (see  above,  on  C,  15.  8,  28.) 
The  form  of  expression  used  by  Mark  here  is  unusual  and  different  from 
that  of  both  the  others,  though  it  may  not  be  easy  to  define  the  differ- 
ence of  meaning.  While  Matthew  (17,  8)  says  that  Moses  and  Elijah 
ai:)peared  to  them  (or  were  seen  l)y  them,  in  the  plural  number),  and 
Luke  (9,  30)  merely  amplifies  the  same  expression,  Mark  differs  both 
in  order  and  construction.  There  appeared  to  (or  teas  seen  by)  them 
Elias  icith  Moses.  Elijah  is  not  only  first  named,  and  alone  connected 
with  the  verb,  but  is  said  to  have  had  iMoses  with  him,  which  at  least 
appears  to  give  the  former  the  precedence.  There  are  two  ways  of 
explaining  this  remarkable  expression,  each  of  which  may  commend 
itself  to  some  minds  as  entitled  to  the  preference.  The  first  is  by  re- 
garding the  whole  clause  as  an  exact  description  of  the  original  impres- 
sion made  upon  the  mind  of  Peter,  and  supposing  that  he  saw  Elijah 
first  and  Moses  afterwards,  though  equally  conspicuous  in  all  that  fol- 
lowed. The  other  explanation  is  that  Elijah  was  reall}^  more  prominent 
in  this  majestic  scene  than  Moses,  not  as  his  superior  either  in  person 
or  in  office,  but  as  nearer  to  our  Lord  in  the  prophetical  succession,  and 
expressly  predicted  at  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  as  his  forerunner 
(see  above,  on  1,  2.)  Another  possible  but  less  intelligible  difference 
between  them  is  that  Moses  was  buried  (Deut.  34,  6)  and  Elijah  trans- 
lated (2  Kings  2,  11).  unless  the  former  statement  be  regarded  as  a 
figure  for  ti-anslation  also,  or  the  latter  as  a  figure  for  triumphant  death, 
neither  of  which  impressions  would  be  naturally  made  on  any  unsophis- 
ticated reader.  Wliether  Moses,  therefore,  was  provided  with  a  tem- 
poraiy  or  apparent  body,  like  the  angels  who  descended  to  the  earth  in 
patriarchal  times ;  or  whether,  by  an  anticipation  of  the  final  resurrec- 
tion, he  was  clothed  already  with  the  body  which  he  is  to  wear  for- 
ever; there  is  still  a  difference  between  his  case  and  that  of  Elijah,  who 
had  never  died,  but  now  appeared  in  the  same  body  as  of  old,  however 
changed  and  glorified  (Luke  9,  31.)  The  reappearance  of  these  two 
men,  on  a  mountain-top,  in  such  society,  before  such  witnesses,  and  at 
such  a  crisis  in  the  histoiy  of  redemption,  even  if  it  were  a  fiction, 
would  be  one  of  the  sublimest  upon  record,  and  astonishing  indeed  as 
the  original  conception  of  illiterate  enthusiasts,  who  have  nowhere  else 


M  A  R  K  9,  4.  5.  235 

exhibited  cither  the  power  or  the  disposition  to  indulge  in  such  crea- 
tions, and  who  certainly  have  nowhere  else  presented  any  counterpart 
to  this  transcendant  scene.  But  besides  the  grandeur  of  the  whole 
conception,  there  is  a  singular  minute  propriety  about  it,  no  less  indi- 
cative of  skill  (if  an  invention)  than  the  general  idea  is  of  genius, 
in  selecting  just  these  two,  the  founder  of  the  ceremonial  law  and  the 
theocracy,  on  one  hand ;  on  the  other,  its  restorer  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes  in  the  days  of  its  apostasy,  who  also  was  to  re-appear 
before  its  tinal  abroiiation  at  the  advent  of  the  Messiah.  This  histori- 
cal  position  of  the  two  men  gives  them  a  priorit}'",  not  otherwise  be- 
longing to  them,  over  all  the  other  prophets  of  the  old  economy,  even 
such  illustrious  names  as  those  of  Samuel,  Elisha,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  Daniel  not  excepted.  It  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  sepa- 
rate reason  for  this  choice,  but  is  rather  a  symbolical  premonition  of  it 
in  the  history,  that  even  in  externals  these  three  persons  had  partaken 
of  the  same  experience,  as  for  instance  in  the  singular  coincidence  that 
all  of  them  had  fasted  forty  days  and  forty  nights  in  the  wilderness 
(see  above,  on  1,  13,  and  compare  Ex.  24, 18.  1  Kings  19,  8.)  But 
their  interview,  as  here  described,  was  not  a  silent  one.  A)id  they 
(Moses  and  Elijah)  tcere  talking  with  Jiim,  not  merely  talked,  or  did 
talk,  but  loere  talking,  i.  e.  when  the  disciples  first  beheld  them,  or  as 
long  as  they  continued  visible.  The  subject  of  their  conversation  might 
almost  have  been  conjectured,  as  prospective  rather  than  historical,  as 
relating  not  to  Moses  and  Elias  but  to  Jesus,  or  to  them  only  as  his 
tj'pes  and  his  forerunners.  But  it  might  have  been  less  easy  to  deter- 
mine a  priori  the  specific  theme  of  their  discourse  if  Luke  (9,  31)  had 
not  expressed  it  in  a  single  word,  his  exodus,  the  exit  or  departure 
which  he  was  about  to  accomplish  at  Jerusalem,  and  which  had  in  a 
certain  sense  been  typified  ages  before  by  the  exodes  of  the  two  men 
who  nov/  stood  again  upon  the  earth  and  talked  with  him,  the  exode  of 
Moses  at  the  head  of  Israel  from  the  land  of  Egypt  (Ex.  12.  41),  and 
the  exode  of  Elijah  from  the  head  of  Elisha  (2  Kings  2,  3),  with  -'a 
chariot  of  fire  and  horses  of  fire,"  "bj'  a  whirlwind  into  heaven" 
(2  Kings  2, 11.)  Surely  such  a  combination  of  sublime  historical  asso- 
ciations must  be  either  the  creation  of  transcendant  genius,  or  the  faith- 
ful record  of  supernatural  but  actual  occurrences. 

5.  And  Peter  answered  tmd  said  to  Jesns,  Master,  it 
is  good  for  us  to  be  liere ;  and  let  us  make  three  taber- 
nacles, one  for  thee,  and  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for  Elias. 

The  effect  of  this  august  and  awful  scene,  which  seemed  to  bring  to- 
gether and  embody  the  beginning  and  the  middle  and  the  end  of  his- 
tory, on  the  three  disciples  who  had  been  selected  as  its  earthly  wit- 
nesses, is  at  the  same  time  natural  and  preternatural.  The  spokesman, 
even  here,  is  Peter,  who  sustains  of  course  the  same  relation  to  his 
two  companions  that  he  did  to  the  whole  body  when  assembled  (see 
above,  on  3,.  IG.)  And  answering,  wot  a  mere  unmeaning  pleonasm, 
which  would  be  sadly  out  of  place  in  such  a  narrative  as  this,  but  a 


236  MARK  9,  5. 

most  significant  expression,  serving  to  connect  what  follows  with  what 
goes  before.  Iiet<2^o ruling^  not  to  any  thing  addressed  directly  to  liini- 
self  or  his  companions,  but  to  all  that  he  had  lieard  of  that  celestial 
conversationj  or  to  the  whole  unearthly  scene  as  vocal  to  his  spiritual 
senses.  He  says  to  Jesus,  a  particular  preserved  in  all  the  nan-atives, 
and  therefore  probably  impljing  some  expressive  look  or  gesture  une- 
quivocally pointing  out  the  object  of  address,  as  being  at  once  the  most 
exalted  and  the  most  familiar.  Iiabli,  not  the  honorary  title  of  a  Jew- 
ish scribe  or  doctor  of  the  law,  as  some  absurdly  fancy,  but  the  same 
expression  that  is  here  preserved  by  Luke  (9,  33)  and  Matthew  (17,4) 
only  in  its  native  Aramaic  form,  which  Mark  delights  to  treasure  up 
whenever  Peter's  recollection  or  some  other  source  had  happily  pre- 
served it  (see  above,  on  5.  41.  7,  11.)  It  is  one  of  the  most  striking  and 
instructive  instances  of  the  sameness  in  variety,  by  which  the  gospels 
are  distinguished,  that  while  all  three  evangelists  agree  verbatim  in  the 
words  addressed  to  Christ  by  Peter,  they  all  differ  in  the  title  prefixed 
to  it,  and  that  not  at  random  or  as  if  by  chance  but  characteristically, 
i.  e.  in  accordance  with  their  usage  elsewhere ;  for  while  Matthew  has 
the  ordinarj^  Hellenistic  term  for  Lord  or  Master  (^Kvpic).  and  Luke  a 
more  elegant  and  classic  synonyme*  denoting  any  overseer  or  prefect 
(eTTiorara),  ]Mark  has  preserved  to  us  the  very  word  originally  uttered 
(pa^idi),  and  of  Avhich  the  others  are  mere  Greek  translations,  but  which 
Mark  himself  does  not  think  it  necessary  to  intei-pret,  because  so  f;i- 
miliar  even  to  the  Gentiles  and  still  more  to  every  Jew,  whether  Hel- 
lenist or  Hebrew,  who  would  instantly  yecognize  it  both  as  a  formula 
in  common  use  and  as  an  uncorrupted  sample  of  the  sacred  language 
("'i'^).  Good  (i.  e,  in  every  sense,  both  natural  and  moral,  right  and 
happy,  useful  and  agieeable)  is  it  (for)  i(s  here  to  he^  the  order  in  which 
all  the  evangelists  record  this  speech  of  Peter,  which  could  never  have 
been  feigned  by  a  fictitious  writer,  but  demonstrates  its  own  genuine- 
ness by  being  at  the  same  time  so  natural  and  so  unusual.  The  feel- 
ing expressed  is  that  of  perfect  satis fiiction  and  reluctance  to  go  else- 
where, mingled  with  a  vague  recollection  that  they  were  upon  a  soli- 
tary mountain-top  without  the  least  accommodation  or  even  shelter. 
It  is  this  odd  but  natural  confusion  of'habitual  associations  with  extra- 
ordinary actual  impressions  that  no  forger  would  have  thought  of,  and 
which  therefore  stamps  the  record  as  authentic.  Let  us  malce  three 
taheriKideH.  i.  e.  tents,  booths,  sheds,  or  any  other  light  and  temporav}'- 
shelter,  as  distinguished  from  a  permanent  and  solid  dwelling.  Though 
the  version  tahcrnacles  may  be  too  resti'icted  and  awaken  in  the  Eng- 
lish reader  only  the  idea  of  a  sacred  edifice,  to  which  it  is  commonly 
applied  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  not  incorrect,  as  that  idea  would  1)0 
unavoidably  suggested  even  to  an  ancient  reader  from  the  correspond- 
ing use  of  the  Greek  word  in  the  Septuagint  version.  I'eter  liimself 
may  have  intended  an  allusion  to  the  sacred  tent  of  the  Mosaic  law  or 
to  the  booths  used  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  ;  but  the  primary  essen- 
tial meaning  was  no  doubt  that  of  shelter  and  acconunodation.  That 
this  was  no  selfish  proposition  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  he  ap- 
propriates the  three  proposed  tents  to  the  three  majestic  persons  then 


MARK  9,  5.  G.  7.  237 


"before  him,  without  any  allusion  to  himself  or  his  companions,  except 
as  those  b}^  whom  the  tents  were  to  be  made  ;  for  there  is  no  proba- 
bility in  the  opinion  that  he  means  to  include  Jesus  when  he  says,  let 
us  ma'ke.  Whether,  as  some  one  has  ingeniousl}'  imagined,  he  intended 
to  propose  that  each  of  the  disciples  should  erect  a  tent  for  one  of  the 
illustrious  trio  and  then  wait  upon  him  in  it,  is  a  subtle  question  nei- 
ther easy  nor  necessary  to  be  answered.  Another  dubious  but  unes- 
sential point  is  the  idea  that  this  proposition  was  unconsciously  sug- 
gested by  the  overwhehning  brightness  and  effulgence  of  the  scene 
before  him,  from  which  he  instinctively  seeks  refuge  in  the  tents  which 
he  proposes  to  erect.  This  is  certainly  not  obvious  or  necessary ;  nor 
upon  the  other  hand  is  it  at  variance  with  the  main  idea,  which  is  evi- 
dently that  of  prolonging  the  delightful  scene  by  furnishing  at  least  a 
temporar}'  home  and  shelter  for  the  august  actors.  In  all  the  accounts 
of  this  untimely  but  affectionate  proposal,  Peter  names  his  master  first, 
then  Moses,  then  Elijah,  which  would  seem  to  militate  against  the  sup- 
position that  Mark  intended  (in  v.  4)  to  represent  the  third  as  in  any 
sense  superior  to  the  second. 

6.  For  he  wist  not  what  to  say,  for  they  were  sore 
afraid. 

Far  from  concealing  or  denying  that  Peter's  proposition  was  a 
strange  one.  the  historian  offers  an  apology  or  explanation  of  its  strange- 
ness. For  he  icist  (in  modern  English  knew)  not  tchat  to  say  (or  what 
he  should  say.)  It  is  characteristic  of  Peter,  that  he  thought  he  must 
say  something,  even  then  and  even  there.  Equally  natural  and  true  is 
the  statement  made  by  Luke  (0.  33),  that  he  knew  not  what  he  did 
say  or  was  saying.  The  cause  of  both  effects  was  fear,  not  mere  alarm 
or  dread,  but  also  a  religious  awe,  occasioned  by  the  presence  of  celes- 
tial visitants  and  by  the  supernatural  character  of  the  whole  transac- 
tion. This  effect  was  common  to  the  three  disciples,  although  intended 
to  explain  the  v/ords  of  Peter  only,  an  additional  indication  that  he 
spoke  in  their  behalf  as  well  as  in  his  own, 

7.  i\ncl  there  was  a  cloud  that  overshadowed  them; 
and  a  voice  came  out  of  the  cloud,  saying,  This  is  my  be- 
loved Son,  hear  him. 

And  there  was  (became,  or  came)  a  cloud,  a  luminous  or  bright 
cloud  (Matt.  17,5),  orershadounng  them,  partly  as  a  sign  of  the  divine 
presence,  partly  as  a  veil  or  screen,  beneath  the  cover  of  which  Moses 
and  Elijah  disappeared.  And  there  came  (not  the  verb  before  used, 
but  the  ordinary  word  for  coming)  a  voice  out  of  fhe  cloud,  in  which 
the  speaker  seeiiied  to  be  hidden,  saying  (omitted  in  the  oldest  manu- 
scripts, but  easily  supplied  by  every  reader),  This  is  my  Son,  the  Be- 
loved, the  very  attestation  uttered  at  his  baptism  (see  above,  on  1, 11), 
but  without  the  words,  in  whom  I  am  tcell  j^leased-,  which  however  are 
supplied  by  Matthew  (17,  5.)     This  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  a 


238  MARK  9,  7.  8.  9. 

sort  of  second  baptism,  to  prepare  him  for  his  passion  as  the  first  did 
for  his  ministry,  a  baptism  not  with  water  but  with  hght,  not  in  the 
stream  but  '"  in  the  cloud  "  (1  Cor.  10,  2),  not  by  John  but  (as  it  were) 
by  Moses  and  EHjah,  not  in  the  presence  of  the  people  but  in  that  of 
the  three  chosen  witnesses.  The  essential  meaning  of  the  voice  from 
heaven  is,  that  Jesus  was  precisely  what  he  claimed  to  be,  the  Son  of 
God  as  well  as  Man,  divinely  sent  forth  and  commissioned  as  the  great 
prophetic  teacher.  Hence  to  the  voice  uttered  at  his  baptism  all  the 
three  accounts  add  two  important  words,  him  liear  !  i.  e.  receive  his 
instructions  and  obey  them  as  divinely  authorized.  The  impression 
made  by  this  celestial  oracle  on  Peter  was  recorded  by  himself  long 
after,  and  may  still  be  read  in  one  of  his  epistles  (2  Pet.  1,  17. 18.) 

8.  And  sucldenl}^,  when  they  had  looked  ronnd  about, 
they  saw  no  man  any  more,  save  Jesus  only  with  them- 
selves. 

The  termination  of  this  grand  scene  was  as  sudden  and  abrupt  as 
its  beginning.  LooMng  (or  liating  loolced)  around,  in  search  of  those 
who  had  been  standing  near  them  when  the  cloud  passed  over  them. 
they  no  longer  saio  any  one^  literally,  no  one^  the  idiomatic  double  nega- 
tive of  which  we  have  alread}'  had  examples.  Save,  except,  but  (which 
is  the  literal  translation)  Jesus  only  (or  alone)  icith  themselves.  Ac- 
cording to  Mark's  narrative,  here  less  minute  and  graphic  than  the 
others  although  perfectly  harmonious,  it  was  while  the  bright  cloud 
overshadowed  the  whole  part}^,  dazzling  and  blinding  the  disciples' 
eyes  and  making  their  ears  tingle  with  those  solemn  words,  that  Moses 
and  Elijah  silently  withdrew. 

9.  And  as  they  came  down  from  the  mountain,  he 
charged  tliem  that  they  should  tell  no  man  what  things 
they  had  seen,  till  the  Son  of  man  were  risen  from  the 
dead. 

And  they  descending  (i.  e.  while  or  as  they  did  ?>o)from  tlie  moun- 
tain (see  above,  on  v.  2),  he  charged  them^  the  verb  used  above  in  5, 
43.  7,  3G.  8, 15,  and  originally  meaning  to  distinguish  or  discriminate, 
but  employed  as  here  by  Diodorus  Siculus.  Tell,  relate,  detail,  origin- 
ally meaning  to  go  through  with  or  to  lead  through  (see  above,  on  5, 
IG.)  No  man^  no  one,  nobod}',  without  regard  to  sex  or  any  other 
personal  distinction  (see  above,  on  v.  8,  and  on  2,  21,  22),  ichat  (tJiings), 
or  {the  things)  wJiich  they  had  seen  (or  more  exactly,  saic,  while  on  the 
mount.)  7'lll,  literally,  if  not  (i.  e.  unless  or  except),  tchen  (or  after 
that.)  The  Son  of  Man,  not  merely  a  periphrasis  for  the  pronoun 
(I),  but  in  its  full  significancy,  as  before  explained  (on  2, 10,  28.  8,  31. 
38.)  I,  who  now  appear  as  a  mere  man  and  yet  am  the  Messiah  so  de- 
scribed'by  Daniel  (7,13.)  From  the  dead  (i.  e.  from  among  them) 
should  arise,  or  be  resuscitated  (as  in  5,  42.  8,  21.) 


MARK  9,  10.  11.  239 

10.  And  tliey  kept  tliat  saying  with  themselves,  qnes- 
tionino;  one  with  another  wliat  the  risino-  from  the  dead 
shoukl  mean. 

That  saying^  literall}',  the  word  (or  syeecli)^  which  may  either  mean 
the  whole  of  this  command,  or  the  particular  expression  which  they  did 
not  understand.  In  the  former  case,  the  verb  may  denote  strict  ob- 
servance and  obedience,  as  the  Jews  are  said  to  have  held  (or  held  fast) 
their  traditions  (7,  3.  4.  8),  where  the  Greek  verb  is  the  same.  The 
meaning  of  the  whole  verse  then  is,  that  the  three  obeyed  their  Lord's 
injunction  to  conceal  what  the}'  had  seen  until  a  certain  time,  although 
they  did  not  clearly  understand  what  time  he  meant.  On  the  other 
supposition,  the  verb  ma}^  mean  to  seize^  lay  hold  of  (as  in  1,  31.  o,  21. 
5,  41.  6, 17),  and  the  whole  clause,  that  they  caught  at  this  mysterious 
expression  and  discussed  among  themselves  its  import.  Either  of  these 
constructions  yields  a  good  sense,  but  the  latter  a  more  striking  one, 
although  the  former  is  preferred  by  most  interpreters.  Questioning^ 
inquiring  jointly  or  together,  in  the  way  of  conversational  discussion 
(see  above,  on  1,  27.  8,  11.)  Should  mean  (literally,  is)  the  rising  from 
the  dead.  The  obscurity  of  this  phrase  is  not  to  be  measured  by  our 
own  familiar  knowledge  of  it.  drawn  from  the  event  itself,  but  by  its 
enigmatical  and  dubious  import  when  our  Lord  first  used  it  in  foretell- 
ing his  own  passion.  To  us  it  may  well  seem  that  the  words  can  have 
but  one  sense,  while  to  those  who  originally  heard  them  they  might 
just  as  v>q\\  appear  equivocal  and  doubtful. 

11.  And  they  asked  him,  saying.  Why  say  the  scribes 
tliat  Elias  mnst  lirst  come  ? 

While  they  did  not  venture  to  demand  an  explanation  of  this  diffi- 
cult expression,  probably  deterred  by  a  foreboding  that  it  veiled  some 
terrible  catastrophe  approaching,  they  evinced  their  interest  in  what 
they  had  just  seen  by  asking  an  appropriate  question  in  relation  to  the 
promised  coming  of  Elijah.  Why,  how  is  it,  that,  (what  is  the  reason) 
that  the  scribes,  the  professional  expounders  of  the  law  and  prophets 
(see  above,  on  1.  22),  say  (in  that  capacity  or  in  their  teaching)  that 
Julias  (Elijah)  mvst  first  come,  or  that  it  is  necessary  for  Elias  to  come 
first,  i.  e.  before  the  advent  of  Messiah  himself.  Their  difficulty  seems 
to  have  been  this,  that  according  to  the  prophecies,  as  commonly  ex- 
pounded ex  cathedra,  the  Messiah  was  not  to  appear  until  Elijah  had 
come  first;  but  this  advent  had  just  taken  place,  while  Jesus  had 
been  previously  recognized  as  the  Messiah,  at  least  by  his  apostles  (see 
above,  on  8,  29.)  They  seem  to  have  looked  upon  the  glorious  appear- 
ance of  Elijah  which  they  had  just  witnessed  as  the  coming  prophesied 
in  Malachi,  and  therefore  were  perplexed  by  what  appeared  to  be  a 
preposterous  inversion  of  events,  the  principal  preceding  his  forerunner. 
There  is  something  in  this  question  altogether  natural,  and  showing 
some  degree  of  earnest  and  intelligent  solicitude  upon  a  most  important 
subject,  yet  entirel}^  consistent  with  their  clouded  and  imperfect  appre- 


240  MARK  9,  11.  12. 

hension  of  their  master's  meaning  when  he  spoke  of  his  own  death  and 
resurrection. 

12.  And  lie  answered  and  told  them,  Elias  verily 
cometli  first,  and  restoretli  all  things ;  and  how  it  is  writ- 
ten of  the  Son  of  Man,  that  he  mnst  suffer  many  things, 
and  be  set  at  nought. 

Our  Lord's  reply  determines  two  important  points,  the  meaning  of 
the  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment.  In  the  first  place,  he  confirms  the  ex- 
position given  by  the  scribes  of  the  prediction  found  in  Malachi. 
Verily,  not  amen^  which  is  so  translated  in  the  first  verse  of  this  chap- 
ter (and  in  3,  18.  6, 11.  8, 12),  but  the  usual  Greek  particle  (/ueV),  ex- 
pr-essive  of  concession,  corresponding  to  indeed^  or  it  is  ttnie,  in  English. 
(It  is  true,  as  the  scribes  say,  that)  Elijah  coming  Jirst,  restoreth  all 
(things),  i.  e.  by  announcing  the  Messiah's  advent,  and  preaching  re- 
pentance as  a  preparation  for  it,  brings  the  people,  so  far  as  his  influ- 
ence extends,  back  to  their  old  theocratical  position,  which  their  spir- 
itual leaders  had  long  since  forsaken.  This  appears  to  be  the  meaning 
which  our  Lord  here  tacitly  attaches  to  the  words  of  Malachi  in  speak- 
ing of  Elijah's  reapiDcarance,  "he  shall  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to 
the  children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  fathers  "  (^lal.  4.  6), 
which  can  hardly  refer  to  mere  domestic  or  contemporar}^  reconcilia- 
tions, the  very  opposite  of  which  is  represented  elsewhere  as  the  effect 
of  his  own  coming  (Matt.  10,  34-36),  but  must  rather  be  descriptive  of 
an  ideal  compromise  or  reconciliation  between  different  generations,  by 
bringing  back  the  later  to  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  earlier,  so 
far  as  these  were  good  and  in  accordance  with  the  true  design  and 
spirit  of  the  system  under  which  they  lived.  What  is  here  taught  in- 
directly and  by  implication  had  been  long  before  explicitly  propounded 
by  the  angel  who  announced  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist  when  he 
said,  reciting  and  applying  the  prophetic  words  of  Malachi:  ''And 
many  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God. 
And  he  shall  go  before  him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  turn  the 
hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  disobedient  to  the  wisdom 
of  the  just,  to  make  leady  a  peo[)le  prepared  for  the  Lord"  (Luke  1.  10. 
17.)  The  office  of  restorer,  thus  assigned  to  the  foreiunner,  may  ac- 
count for  the  selection  of  Elijah  among  all  the  pi-ophets  of  the  old 
economy  to  be  his  type  and  representative  (see  above,  on  v.  4).  and 
also  for  our  Saviour's  application  of  the  verb  r(storc^  in  this  place,  to 
Elijah's  agency.  The  next  clause  is  obscure  both  in  grammatical 
construction  and  in  its  connection  with  the  first  clause.  JIoio  is  prop- 
erly and  commonly  a  particle  of  direct  interrogation  (as  in  3,  23.  4, 
13.  40.  8,  21),  but  sometimes,  in  both  languages,  is  construed  indirectly 
(as  in  2,  20.  5,  10.)  If  the  former  usage  be  adopted  here,  this  clause 
will  be  a  question  interposed  between  the  two  parts  of  our  Saviour's 
answer  to  the  question  in  the  foregoing  verse.  IIow  has  it  deen  written, 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  &c.  ?  But  as  such  a  question  would  be  here  mis- 
placed, if  not  unmeaning,  the  preference  seems  due  to  the  other  construe- 


MARK  9,  12.  13.  241 


tion,  which  makes  how  and  the  words  following  dependent  on  the  verb 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  (he  said  to  them,  or  told  them)  how  it 
has  heen  icritten  of  the  Son  of  Man.  Tiie  clause  is  then  a  parenthetical 
comment  on  the  one  before  it,  involving  an  argument  a  fortiori.  'It  is 
true  as  the  scribes  say  that  the  appearance  of  Elijah  is  predicted  by  the 
prophets  ;  and  remember  that  the  sufierings  of  the  jNlessiah  are  pre- 
dicted likewise,  so  that  if  the  one  predi(3tion  has  been  verified,  you  may 
look  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  other  also.'  This  construction,  like  the 
former,  is  a  harsh  one,  but  cannot,  like  it,  be  described  as  unmeaning, 
since  it  represents  the  Saviour  as  availing  himself  of  the  disciples'  ques- 
tion to  suggest  another  of  still  more  importance  in  relation  to  himself, 
and  thus  perhaps  to  lessen  their  bewilderment  and  wonder  at  the  very 
thought  of  his  approaching  passion.  For  what  had  thus  been  iDvitten 
of  him.  or  upon  him,  as  the  object  upon  which  the  prophecy,  though 
long  deferred,  was  finally  to  terminate,  was  the  very  fact  which  so  be- 
wildered them,  that  he  should  suffer,  and  paiticularly  suffer  death,  a  preg- 
nant sense  of  the  verb  even  wiien  absolutely  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (see  above,  on  8,  31,  and  compare  Luke  22, 15.  2-1,  46.  Acts  1.  3. 
3,  18.  17,  3.  1  Pet.  2,  21.  3, 18.  4,  1),  and  in  so  suffering,  both  before 
and  at  the  time  of  his  decease,  should  he  set  at  nought.^  reduced  to  noth- 
ing, treated  as  such,  a  verb  not  used  in  classic  Greek,  but  explained  by 
its  obvious  derivation  from  the  common  word  for  nothing.  The  idio- 
matic English  phrase  to  set  at  nought  may  mean  to  set  down,  charge, 
or  estimate  an  object  at  that  value,  i.  e.  to  regard  and  treat  it  as  worth 
nothing,  which  is  certainly  a  strong  expression  of  contemptuous  re- 
jection. 

13.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Tliat  Elias  is  indeed  come,  and 
they  have  done  unto  him  whatsoever  they  listed,  as  it  is 
written  of  liim. 

Having  removed  one  part  of  their  difficulty  as  to  the  sense  of  the 
prediction  which  perplexed  them,  he  removes  the  other,  as  to  its  fulfil- 
ment. It  was  true  that  according  to  the  scriptures  Elijah  was  to  come 
as  a  forerunner,  and  according  to  the  nature  of  things  and  the  very 
definition  of  the  term,  a  forerunner  must  precede  his  principal.  But 
so  he  did  in  this  case.  /  say  unto  you.  I  am  about  to  tell  you  where 
your  error  lies,  and  what  it  is  that  occasions  }Our  embarrassment. 
You  take  for  granted  that  Elijah  did  not  come  till  now,  i.  e.  long  after 
I  had  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  But  I  tell  you  (what  you  do  not  as 
yet  understand),  that  Elijah  is  indeed  come,  or  has  also  come,  has  not 
only  been  predicted  but  has  also  (actually)  come,  i.  e.  came  at  the 
proper  time  before  me,  and  not  after  me  as  you  imagine.  This  implies 
of  course  that  Malachi's  prediction  was  fulfilled,  not  in  the  glorious  ap- 
pearance of  Elijah  which  they  had  just  witnessed,  but  in  a  previous 
appearance  of  that  prophet.  '  But  when  was  this?  or  what  had  now 
become  of  him  7  This  tacit  question  is  replied  to  in  the  last  clause. 
And  they  have  done  to  him  (or  rather  did^  when  he  appeared)  what- 
soever they  listed  or  whatever  (filings')  they  chose  (or  icished.)      They 


242  MAKK  9,  13.  14. 

refers  to  the  unbelieving  Jews  in  general,  but  with  special  reference  to 
the  scribes,  already  mentioned  as  their  spiritual  leaders  and  expounders 
of  the  scripture.  Instead  of  recognizing  the  Elijah,  whose  coming  as 
the  herald  of  Messiah  they  correctly  held  to  be  predicted  in  the  last 
words  of  the  last  prophet  in  their  sacred  canon,  they  treated  him  pre- 
cisely as  they  might  have  treated  any  other  man  according  to  their  own 
capricious  will  and  arbitrar}''  judgment.  But  even  this  was  compre- 
hended in  the  prophec}^,  to  wit,  in  the  concluding  words  of  Malachi  im~ 
plying  that  the  mission  of  Elijah  would  be  either  a  blessing  or  a  curse 
to  those  whom  it  concerned  (Mai.  4,  6.)  Even  of  this  rejection,  there- 
fore, it  might  well  be  added,  as  it  has  ieen  written  of  Mm  (or  vjjon 
Jilm.)  The  perfect  passive  in  both  verses,  like  the  same  form  in  7,  6, 
suggests  not  merely  that  the  words  were  written  centuries  ago,  nor 
merely  that  they  were  now  extant,  but  that  they  had  been  on  record 
and  awaiting  their  fulfilment  through  the  whole  of  this  long  interval. 
Then,  as  we  learn  from  Matthew  (17,  13),  although  Mark  has  not  re- 
corded it,  they  understood  that  the  Elijah  thus  predicted  was  no  other 
than  that  John  whose  disciples  some  of  them  had  been,  and  by  whom 
V        they  may  all  have  been  baptized. 

great  multitude  about  them,  and  the  scribes  questioning 
with  them. 

And  coming  (or  having  come)  to  the  disciples^  i.  e.  to  the  nine 
apostles  whom  he  left  behind  when  he  withdrew  to  be  transfigured  (v. 
2),  and  perhaps  some  others  who  were  not  apostles  (see  above,  on  4, 
10.)  It  is  not  said  where  he  left  them,  probably  at  the  foot  of  the 
mountain  where  he  was  transfigured.  A  great  muliitude,  or  more 
exactly,  much  croicd,  implying  not  mere  numbers,  but  pressure  and 
confusion.  About  them^  surrounding  the  disciples,  who  would  of  course 
be  objects  of  curiosity,  if  not  of  worse  affections,  when  the  crowd  was 
no  longer  checked  or  awed  by  the  presence  of  the  master.  And  scribes, 
not  the  scribes,  as  referring  to  certain  individuals  of  that  class ;  but 
among  the  crowd,  as  might  have  been  expected,  he  saw  scribes,  taking 
the  lead  in  the  attack  upon  the  poor  defenceless  group,  who  as  yet 
were  far  from  being  ready  either  to  defend  themselves  or  to  vindicate 
their  master.  Questioning,  disputing  in  the  way  of  catechising  or  iur 
terrogation,  an  unequal  contest,  so  far  as  external  advantages  were  con- 
cerned, between  the  illiterate  and  partiall}'  enlightened  followers  of 
Christ  on  one  hand,  and  the  highly  educated  and  experienced  scribes 
upon  the  other.  The  subject  of  inquiry  and  dispute  is  now  unknown, 
except  so  far  as  it  may  be  inferred  from  what  is  stated  in  the  following 
verses. 

15.  And  straightway  all  tlic  people,  when  they  beheld 
him,  Avere  greatly  amazed,  and  running  to  (him),  saluted 
l)im. 


MARK   9,  15.  IG.  243 


StraigJitway^  iramediatelj'-.  as  soon  as  he  was  visible  descending 
from  the  mountain.  All  the  'people^  the  word  translated  multitude  in 
V.  14,  but  corresponding  more  exactly  in  both  places  to  our  crowd  or 
throng.  Seeing  him  icere  amazed^  the  qualifying  adverb  {greatly^  an- 
swering to  no  distinct  Greek  word  but  only  to  the  compound  and  em- 
phatic form  of  the  verb.  Some  infer  from  their  amazement  that  there 
was  still  some  remnant  of  the  supernatural  effulgence  which  had  re- 
cently enveloped  him,  and  which  attracted  the  attention  of  the  people 
even  at  a  distance.  But  this,  though  countenanced  by  the  analogy  of 
Moses'  face  shining  when  he  came  down  from  the  mount  (Ex.  37,  29- 
35),  is  not  a  necessary  supposition  in  the  case  before  us,  where  so  sur- 
prising an  appearance  would  no  doubt  have  been  distinctly  mentioned, 
and  the  verb,  although  a  strong  one,  docs  not  necessarily  denote  more 
than  the  natural  effect  produced  upon  a  restless  and  excited  crowd  by 
the  sudden  appearance  of  a  person  whom  they  had  been  vainly  looking 
for.  JRunning  to  him.  not  the  whole  mass  but  large  numbers,  while  at 
least  as  many  may  have  waited  for  him  where  the}^  were.  This  differ- 
ence, not  only  natural  but  almost  unavoidable  in  all  such  cases,  and 
suggested  here  by  a  comparison  of  Mark's  words,  as  just  given,  with 
Matthew's  {coming  to  the  c?'6»itYZ).and  Luke's  {the  crowd  met  him),  is 
gravely  represented  by  distinguished  writers  as  a  discrepancy  which  it 
is  dishonest  to  deny,  explain  away,  or  try  to  reconcile !  To  most 
American  and  English  readers  such  objections  rather  serve  to  strengthen 
than  to  injure  the  defences  of  the  Gospel,  as  evincing  that  they  can  be 
shown  to  contradict  each  other  only  by  devices  which  even  the  most 
impudent  and  mercenar}''  advocate  would  be  ashamed  to  use  in  any  of 
our  courts  of  justice.  Saluted  him^  or  as  the  Greek  word  primarily 
signifies,  welcomed  /izm,  implying  or  expressing  joy  at  his  arrival.  This 
shows  that  as  yet  there  was  no  ebb  in  the  tide  of  our  Lord's  favour 
with  the  masses,  whatever  may  have  been  the  evil  dispositions  of  their 
leaders  towards  him. 

16.  And  lie  asked  the  scribes,  What  question  ye  with 
them  ? 

ffe  asTced,  interrogated,  questioned  with  authority  (see  above,  on  5, 
9.  8,  5.  23.)  TJie  scrides,  or,  according  to  the  latest  critics,  simply 
them,  which  means  the  same  thing,  as  it  was  the  scribes  who  were  be- 
fore said  (v.  14)  to  have  been  disputing  with  them.  What  question  ye 
with  them,  or  according  to  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible,  among 
yourselves,  a  version  resting  on  a  slight  difference  of  text  contained  in 
some  old  copies,  and  only  affecting  a  single  letter  or  perhaps  an  aspira- 
tion, not  expressed  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  and  therefoie  law- 
ful subject  of  conjecture.  According  to  this  reading,  the  address  is  to 
the  crowd  collectivel}^,  including  both  the  scribes  and  the  disciples. 
According  to  the  other,  which  is  regarded  as  the  true  one  by  the  best 
authorities,  the  words  were  spoken  to  the  scribes  alone,  and  were  in- 
tended to  transfer  their  opposition  from  the  disciples  to  our  Lord  him- 
self.    What  question  ye,  i.  e.  what  is  the  subject  of  your  disputatious 


244  MAEK  9,  IG.  17. 

and  litigious  questions,  or,  as  the  words  may  also  be  translated,  wTiy 
question  ye,  implying  that  there  was  no  proper  or  sufficient  ground  for 
their  proceedings.  WitJi  them,  a  Greek  phrase  not  denoting  mere  con- 
\  junction  or  association,  but  rather  opposition,  either  indirect  {at  them) 
or  direct  (against  them.) 

17.  And  one  of  the  mnltitncle  answered  and  said,  Mas- 
ter, I  have  brought  unto  thee  my  son,  which  hath  a  dumb 
spirit. 

Unless  this  be  regarded  as  a  sheer  interruption  which  pre- 
vented his  inquiry  being  answered  at  all,  it  would  appear  from  this 
verse  that  the  subject  of  dispute  had  been  the  right  or  the  power  of 
dispossessing  demons,  which  the  scribes  may  have  reproached  the  nine 
for  not  possessing  or  untruly  claiming ;  or  they  may  perhaps  have  gone 
so  far  as  to  deny  the  same  thing  with  respect  to  Christ  himself,  or  to 
renew  the  odious  accusation  of  collusion  with  the  evil  one  (see  above, 
on  3,  22.)  That  their  disputations  were  in  some  way  connected  with 
the  case  of  demoniacal  possession  here  described,  appears  to  follow  from 
the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  participle  answering  (i.  e.  reply- 
ing to  the  question  in  v.  IG),  which,  although  not  always  necessarily 
suggested  hy  the  verb  to  ansicer  (see  above,  on  vs.  5.  12),  is  undoubt- 
edly entitled  to  the  preference  when  other  things  are  equal.  One  of 
the  multitude,  or  rather,  one  out  of  the  croiod,  the  construction  being 
not  that  of  a  simple  genitive,  but  of  a  preposition  meaning  from  or  out 
of.  The  meaning  then  is,  not  that  this  man  was  one  among  the  many 
present,  but  that  he  spoke  from  the  midst  of  the  assembled  mul  titude 
in  answer  to  the  Saviours  question.  /  have  Ijrought,  or  rather,  as  the 
verb  is  not  a  perfect  but  an  aorist,  /  'brought  (i.  e.  a  little  while  ago)  my 
son  to  thee,  expressing  the  intention  of  his  coming  though  he  found 
Christ  absent.  Tiie  remainder  of  the  verse  describes  the  cause  of  his 
son's  sulTerings.  Having  (in  him  or  united  with  him,  see  above,  on  3,  30. 
7,  25)  a  dumh  (or  speecJilcss)  spirit  (see  above,  on  7.  37.)  This  may 
mean  a  demon  by  whose  presence  and  possession  the  demoniac  was 
silenced,  or  deterred  from  using  his  powers  of  speech,  either  by  physi- 
cal or  moral  interference.  Or  it  may  mean,  as  some  interpreters  sup- 
pose, tliat  the  spirit  was  a  silent  one  compared  with  those  so  frequently 
described  as  ci-ying  out.  The  former  meaning  is  more  obvious  and 
pertinent,  as  this  is  evidently  a  description,  not  of  the  evil  spirit's  habits 
as  to  speech  or  silence,  but  of  the  morbid  influence  exerted  by  him  on 
his  victim,  and  from  which  he  might  himself,  without  absurdity  or  even 
violation  of  usage,  be  described  as  dumb  or  speechless. 

18.  And  wlieresoever  he  taketli  him,  he  teareth  him ; 
and  he  Ibameth  aiid   gnasheth  with  his  teeth,  and  pinetl 
away  ;   and  I  spake  to  thy  disciples  that  they  should  cast 
him  out,  and  tliev  could  not. 


MARK  9,  18.  245 

Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  transfiguration  (see  above,  on  v.  3), 
the  three  accounts  are  remarkably  full  and  strongly  expressed,  yet 
very  different,  the  only  satisfactory  solution  of  which  is.  that  each  has 
preserved  some  of  the  expressions  used  by  the  afflicted  father,  an  ec- 
lectic process  which  is  so  far  from  being  artificial  or  unnatural,  as  some 
unfriendly  critics  and  tlreir  humble  imitators  have  alleged,  that  it  is 
constantly  occurring  both  in  formal  trials  and  in  common  conversation, 
wherever  a  plurality  of  witnesses  relate  the  same  thing,  if  it  compre- 
hend a  number  of  particulars,  all  which  are  not  essential  to  the  pur- 
pose of  the  narrative  or  statement.  Leaving  out  of  view,  therefore,  the 
peculiar  symptoms  here  described  by  Luke  (9,  39)  and  Matthew  (17, 
39),  and  confining  our  attention  to  those  given  by  Mark,  we  find  that 
they  make  up  a  fearful  but  consistent  and  intelligible  picture  of  severe 
and,  as  we  learn  from  the  context,  preternatural  disease.  Wheresoever 
(or  in  modern  phrase  icJiereier^  in  whatever  place,  it  ta'ketli  Jiim,  not 
carries  or  transports  but  simply  seizes  him.  a  verb  elsewhere  meta- 
phorically used  (except  in  John  8,  3.  4),  but  always  in  the  same  essen- 
tial sense  of  grasping,  apprehending,  either  with  the  mind  or  body.  It 
is,  to  say  the  least,  a  curious  coincidence  that  this  verb  is  tiie  root  or 
theme  of  the  medical  terms  catalepsy^  cataleptic^  though  the  symptoms 
here  described  are  more  like  those  of  the  disease  distinguished  by  the 
kindred  terms  epiltpsy,  epUeptk.,  which  are  from  the  same  verb  but 
compounded  with  another  i^reposition.  Wherever  it  (the  demon)  taJceth 
him,  implies  that  he  was  liable  to  violent  and  sudden  seizures,  which 
could  not  be  certainly  foreseen.  Teareth  (margin,  dasheth)  /rim,  or  as 
the  Greek  word  properh'  and  commonly  means,  breal'eth  Mm  (in 
pieces),  which  appears  to  be  a  lively  figure  for  convulsions,  as  a  mo- 
mentary dislocation  of  the  whole  frame.  Thus  fiir  the  subject  of  the 
verbs,  implied  though  not  expressed,  is  the  demon.  B}^  an  almost  in- 
sensible transition,  showing  how  complete  the  union  was  supposed  to 
be,  the  verbs  that  follow  must  be  construed  with  the  human  subject, 
as  controlled  and  tortured  by  the  evil  spirit.  Gnashes  loitli  (or  retain- 
ing the  original  construction,  grinds)  his  teeth,  as  an  expression  both 
of  rage  and  pain.  And  pineth  away,  or  rather,  as  the  effect  described 
is  not  a  gradual  or  lasting  but  a  sudden  and  a  temporary  one,  is  parclicd 
(or  dried),  not  permanently  withered  (as  in  3.  1.  3,  compare  4,6.  5, 
29).  the  transient  nature  of  the  symptom  being  indicated  by  the  others 
mentioned  with  it.  I  spaJce  to  thy  disciples  (when  he  could  not  find 
the  Lord  himself),  i.  e.  asked  them,  requested  them,  as  appears  from 
what  immediately  follows,  that,  in  order  that,  denoting  strictly  the 
design  or  object  of  his  speaking,  but  by  necessary  implication  also  what 
he  spoke  (see  above,  on  vs.  9. 12)  tliey  should  (or  would)  cast  it  out 
(expel  or  dispossess  it),  and  they  could  not,  not  a  mere  auxiliary  tense, 
nor  even  the  common  verb  meaning  to  be  al)le,  but  a  more  em})hatic  one 
denoting  tiiat  they  were  not  powerful  or  strong  enough  to  do  it.  and 
suggesting  more  distinctly  the  idea  that  he  looked  upon  it  as  a  case  le- 
quiring  more  than  ordinary  power,  either  natural  or  superhuman,  of 
which  power  he  found  the  nine  disciples  destitute.  (Compare  the  use 
of  the  same  verb  in  5,  4.) 


246  MARK  9,  19. 

19.  He  answeretli  liim,  and  saitli,  O  faithless  genera- 
tion, how  long  shall  I  be  with  jou  ?  how  long  "shall  I 
SLiiier  jou  ?    Bring  him  nnto  me. 

And  ansiDering  him^  or,  according  to  the  oldest  copies  and  the  latest 
critics,  tliem.  Faithless,  i.  e.  "without  faith,  in  either  of  its  senses 
namely,  faithfulness,  fidelity  (as  in  our  phrases,  good  faith,  bad  faith), 
belief,  trust,  especiall}^  in  God  or  Christ.  The  word  here  used  has 
the  former  meaning  in  the  classics  and  the  latter  in  the  scriptures 
(see  John  20,  27.  1  Cor.  7, 12-15,  and  compare  the  cognate  noun  in  6, 
6  above  and  v,  24  below.)  The  same  word  is  given  by  Matthew  (17, 
17)  and  Luke  (0,  41).  but  with  the  addition  of  another,  meaning  twisted, 
distorted,  and  in  a  moral  sense  perverted  or  perverse  (compare  Acts  13, 
o.  10.  20,  30.)  The  epithet  is  therefore  expressive  of  strong  moral  cen- 
sure or  disapprobation,  as  is  also  the  reproachful  question  which  now 
follows.  How  long^  literally,  luitil  icJien.  implj-ing  either  that  the  time 
was  short,  or  that  their  perverseness  was  no  longer  endurable.  With 
you  is  the  exact  sense  of  the  phrase  used  by  Matthew  (/xf ^'  vjxoov)  ;  that 
of  Mark  and  Luke  {irpos  vfxas)  is  more  expressive,  meaning  strictly 
close  to,  at  you,  impljing  the  most  intimate  proximity  or  nearness  (as 
in  John  1,  1.2.)  Bear  you.  or  dear  with  you,  a  Greek  verb  originally 
meaning  to  hold  up,  and  in  the  middle  voice  to  hold  one's  self  up  under 
any  burden,  i.  e.  to  support,  to  beiir,  especially,  to  bear  with  patience 
what  is  trying  and  vexatious  (compare  Acts  18.  14.  2  Cor.  11, 1,  4.  19. 
20.  Eph.  4,  2.)  Here  again  the  question  [how  long  F)  is  equivalent  to 
sa3iug  positive!}',  not  long  or  not  much  longer,  and  the  sentence  thus 
far  is  a  strong  expi'ession  of  impatience  and  displeasure  at  the  unbelief 
of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  The  only  doubt  is,  who  are  here 
addressed,  and  of  whose  unbelief  our  Lord  so  bitterly  complains.  Some 
have  referred  it  to  the  father  of  the  child,  who  had  just  spoken,  and  to 
whom  our  Lord  replied  according  to  the  common  text  (to  him.)  But 
even  if  this  be  the  correct  reading,  the  reproach  could  not' be  meant  for 
him  alone  ;  not  only  because  it  is  unduly  severe,  but  because  it  is  ex- 
pressly applied  to  a  whole  generation,  not  to  any  individual,  except  as 
belonging  to  and  representing  it.  Another  explanation  is,  that  it  re- 
lates to  the  disciples,  who  had  failed  to  work  the  miracle  through  want 
of  faith  (Matt.  17,  20.)  The  meaning  of  the  question  then  may  be, 
'  how  long  do  you  expect  me  to  be  constantly  at  hand,  to  supply  3'our 
lack  of  faith  or  service  ?  and  how  long  do  you  expect  me  to  endure  this 
culpable  defioiency  on  your  part?  '  The  objection  to  this  still  is,  that 
the  term  generation  is  too  strong  for  a  small  company,  or  even  for  the 
larger  body  of  disciples  in  the  wide  sense,  though  it  may  include  them. 
On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  is  best  to  understand  the  words  of  the  con- 
temporary race,  with  whom  our  liOrd  had  come  in  contact,  and  of  whose 
unbelief  and  perverseness  particular  examples  were  alforded  in  this  in- 
stance by  the  malignant  opposition  of  the  scribes,  as  well  as  by  the 
weakness  or  deiiciency  of  faith  in  the  disciples,  and  perhaps  in  the  per- 
son who  applied  to  them  for  healing  (see  below,  on  v.  24.)  Tiiis  almost 
passionate  expostulation  is  succeeded  by  an  order  to  present  the  de- 


MARK  9,  19.  20.  21.  247 

moniac  once  more.  Bring  Mm  to  me,  with  emphasis  upon  the  pro- 
noun :  as  you  have  already  tried  the  healing  power  of  my  followers 
now  try  mine. 

20.  And  they  brouglit  liim  unto  liim ;  and  when  he 
saw  him,  straightway  the  spirit  tare  him,  and  he  fell  on 
the  ground  and  wallowed,  foaming. 

The  plural  form  {thei/  Tjrouglit)  may  be  indefinitely  understood  as 
simply  meaning  that  he  was  hrought  in  obedience  to  the  order,  but 
more  probabl}^  implies  that  he  was  carried,  and  that  the  combined 
strength  of  several  was  rendered  necessary  by  his  weight  and  his  re- 
sistance. The  struggle  of  the  patient  with  his  friends  or  bearers 
brought  on  a  distressing  paroxysm,  here  ascribed  expressly  to  the  de- 
mon who  possessed  him.  Seeing  liim^  i.  e.  when  the  demoniac  saw 
Jesus,  the  participle  being  masculine  in  form,  while  spirit  (the  noun 
following)  is  neuter.  This  irregular  construction  corresponds  to  the 
real  complication  of  two  personal  agencies  in  all  cases  of  possession. 
Tareliim^  tore  or  rent  him.  not  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above  in  v. 
18,  but  meaning  the  same  thing,  and  applied  by  Hippocrates  to  spas- 
modic retching  or  attempts  to  vomit.  Falling  on  the  ground  (or  earth), 
he  (the  demoniac)  wallowed^  rolled  himself,  a  verb  applied  by  Homer 
to  a  voluntary  rolling  in  the  dust  as  a  customary  sign  of  grief  Foam- 
ing, a  symptom  still  observed  in  epileptic  fits,  and  mentioned  in  the 
previous  description  of  the  case  before  us  (see  above,  v.  18.) 


21.  And  he"  asked  his  father.  How  long  is  it  ago  since 
this  came  nnto  him  ?     And  he  said.  Of  a  child. 

And  he  asl^ed,  interrogated,  questioned,  the  intensive  compound  used 
above  in  vs.  11.  16,  and  often  elsewhere,  always  implying  more  than 
an  indifferent  or  curious  asking.  IToio  long  is  it  ago,  literally,  how 
much  tinie^  a  combination  also  used  by  Sophocles  and  other  Attic  writers. 
Since,  literally,  that  or  as,  which  might  also  be  construed  with  the  next 
word  as  a  particle  of  likeness  or  comparison,  as  this,  lilce  this,  thus  ; 
but  the  other  construction  is  more  natural,  and  some  connective  is 
required  between  how  long  and  what  follows.  This  came  unto  him 
(came  to  pass  or  happened  to  him,  see  above,  on  vs.  .3.  7.)  Of  a  child, 
in  modern  English, /rom  a  child,  i.  e.  from  childhood,  a  relative  expres- 
sion which  determines  nothing  as  to  his  exact  age.  The  original  ex- 
pression is  a  single  word,  not  found  in  the  classics,  but  obviously  formed 
by  adding  to  the  noun  child  (the  one  used  above  in  5,  39-41.  7.  28), 
a  syllable  {^^v)  emploj^ed  in  Greek  to  form  a  local  adverb  meaning 
from  a  place  (e.  g.  ovpavo'iiv,  from  heaven.  Acts  14,  17.  2G,  13.)  The 
Vatican  and  other  ancient  copies  prefix  a  preposition  (Jrom)  which, 
though  apparently  superfluous,  may  be  designed  to  strengthen  the  ex- 
pression (even  from,  or  ever  since,  his  childhood.) 


248  MARK  9,  22.  23. 

22.  And  oft-times  it  hatli  cast  him  into  the  fire,  and 
into  tlie  waters  to  destroy  him.  But  if  thon  canst  do  any 
tiling,  have  compassion  on  ns,  and  help  us. 

Besides  answering  the  question,  which  was  no  doubt  intended  to 
convince  the  lookers-on  that  this  was  no  recent,  much  less  an  imag- 
inary atlection,  but  a  case  of  long  standing,  the  father  naturally  adds  a 
few  particulars,  preserved  by  jNIark  alone.  Oft-times^  a  poetical  ex- 
pression, at  least  not  used  in  modern  prose  by  good  writers,  and  here 
emplo^'ed  to  represent  a  single  word  exactly  answering  to  often.  It 
(the  evil  spirit)  Jiath  cast^  or  more  exactly,  did  cast,  i.  e.  while  he  was 
at  home,  before  he  came  here.  Waters,  in  classical  Greek  a  poetical 
plural,  but  in  Hellenistic  usage  answering  to  the  Hebrew  word  which, 
like  the  one  for  heaven  (.see  above  on  1,  10.  11),  has  no  singular.  To 
destroy  Mm,  literally,  that  it  (the  demon)  might  destroy  him  (the 
demoniac.)  But  (though  the  case  is  so  severe  and  so  inveterate),  if 
any  (tfiing)  thou  canst  (art  able  to  perform),  Itelp  (succour)  vs.  a  most 
expressive  Greek  verb,  which  according  to  its  et3'mology  originally 
means  to  run  (^/co)  at  the  war-cr}-  or  a  ciy  for  help  (;:^or}),  then  in  a  more 
general  sense  to  help  or  rescue  in  cmergenc}'',  to  succour,  a  word  of  kin- 
dred oi'igin  in  Latin,  although  less  expressive,  meaning  simply  to  run 
up  (siiccurro),  without  suggesting  the  occasion  as  the  Greek  does. 
Having  conqjassion,  or  retaining  the  passive  form  of  the  original,  moved 
tcith  2Jiiy,  the  peculiar  Hellenistic  or  New  Testament  expression  used 
above  in  1,  41.  6,  34,  and  there  explained.  The  change  of  collocation 
in  the  version  is  not  only  not  required  by  the  difference  of  idiom,  but 
detracts  from  the  force  of  the  original,  if  any  thing  thou  canst  (do')^ 
Jielj)  vs,  yearning  over  us  (or  moved  with  pity  towards  us,)  Importu- 
nate and  earnest  as  this  prayer  appears,  and  in  itself  expressive  of  a 
strong  faith,  it  is  to  be  qualified  by  the  conditional  phrase  which  pre- 
cedes it,  if  thou  canst.,  implying  some  doubt  of  our  Lord's  ability  to 
grant  what  he  desired,  perhaps  occasioned  b}^  his  previous  disappoint- 
ment and  the  failure  of  tlie  nine  disciples  (see  above,  on  v.  18.) 

2?i.  Jesns  said  unto  him,  If  thou  canst  believe,  all 
things  (are)  possible  to  him  that  believeth. 

And  Jesus  said  to  liim,  not  overlooking  this  indication  of  defective 
i^Wh,  If  thou  canst  helicve,  ih^ii  \':i,  the  true  condition,  not  my  power 
but  thy  faith,  tlie  one  being  infinite,  the  otlicr  finite  and  defective. 
The  difficulty  is  not  upon  my  side  but  thy  own  ;  a.sk  not  what  is  pos-' 
sible  to  me,  but  wh.it  is  possible  to  thee,  for  all  things  are  possible  to 
the  (one)  helieving  (the  believer.)  Tiiis  most  interesting  sentence 
varies  considerably  in  the  copies  and  editions,  but  with  more  effect 
upon  the  forui  than  tiie  essential  meaning.  .Several  of  the  oldest  man- 
uscripts and  versions  omit  believe  in  the  first  clause  and  read  simply, 
if  thou  canst.  This  may  be  taken  as  an  abbreviation  of  the  common 
text  and  meaning  the  same  thing,  if  thou  canst  (do  thy  part)  i.  e. 
believe,  as  suggested  in  the  last  clause.    There  is  however  one  striking 


MARK  9,  23.  24.  240 

feature  in  the  Greek  text,  vrhich  does  not  appeal*  in  the  translation 
thoiieh  contained  in  all  the  manuscripts,  and  which  may  seem  to  indi- 
cate a  diflerent  construction.  This  is  the  neuter  article  (ro.  the)  pre- 
fixed to  the  words  if  tJiou  canst,  and  according  to  Greek  usape  mark- 
ing them  as  a  quotation,  which  can  only  be  reproduced  in  English  by 
approximation,  'the  (or  this)  expression,  If  thou  canst.'  This  would 
seem  to  make  the  words  a  repetition  b}'^  our  Lord  himself  of  what  the 
man  had  first  said,  and  according!}'-  the  Arabic  and  Coptic  vei-sions 
paraphrase  it.  '  what  is  this  thou  sayest.  If  thou  canst  7  '  The  modern 
critics,  who  exclude  believe  (Trio-ret" crai)  from  tlie  text,  treat  what  re- 
mains as  a  question  or  an  exclamation.  If  thou  canst  F  or  If  thou 
canst  !  But  one  of  the  most  learned  and  ingenious  gives  the  same 
sense  without  any  omission  by  construing  believe  as  an  imperative.  If 
thou  canst!  lielieve  !  i.  e.  instead  of  questioning  my  power,  do  your  own 
part  by  believing.  But  besides  the  harshness  of  thus  separating  the 
two  verbs,  the  imperative  meaning  of  the  form  {jvumva-ai),  though 
according  to  analogy,  is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  usage.  On  the 
whole,  the  choice  lies  between  the  common  text  in  its  obvious  sense, 
if  thou  canst  helicve.  as  the  condition  of  the  healing,  and  the  Vatican 
or  shorter  reading,  if  thou  canst !  as  an  indignant  repetition  of  the 
nsan's  own  words,  considered  as  betraying  a  deficiency  of  faith.  The 
ultimate  question  is  one  of  criticism  rather  than  interpretation,  and 
although  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  shorter  is  very  strong,  it  hardly 
seems  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  other,  with  its  far  more  natural  and 
easy  though  less  pointed  S3-ntax  and  interpretation. 

24.  And  straiglitway  the  father  of  the  child  cried  out, 
and  said  with  tears,  Lord,  I  believe  ;  help  thou  mine  nn- 
belief. 

Sti'aigMioay.  immediate!}^,  at  once,  without  delay,  as  soon  as  he 
heard  this  most  gracious  declaration.  Crying  Coi(t),  not  tcee2)ing,  but 
calling  aloud,  speaking  w^ith  a  loud  voice.  The  child  may  possibly  be 
nothing  more  than  a  correlative  to  the  father,  as  we  constantly  speak  of 
a  man's  children  even  though  the}^  may  be  far  advanced  in  age.  But 
as  this  relation  would  have  been  sufficiently'  expressed  hj  father,  and 
as  the  other  Greek  word  always  elsewhere  means  a  child  in  age  as  well 
as  in  relation,  it  is  better  to  explain  it  as  determining  in  this  case  that 
the  patient  was  a  boy  and  not  a  man  (see  above,  on  v.  20.)  With  tears 
is  another  phrase  excluded  by  the  latest  critics,  because  not  found  in 
the  oldest  manuscripts.  Though  not  certainly  spurious,  its  omission 
detracts  nothing  from  the  narrative,  except  a  single  graphic  circum- 
stance of  no  importance  although  interesting  and  affecting.  Another 
omission,  on  the  same  authority,  is  that  of  Lord,  which  though  it  may 
not  be  sufficiently  attested,  rather  strengthens  than  enfeebles  the  reply 
b}''  reducing  it  in  compass.  The  reply  itself  is  one  of  the  most  beauti- 
ful on  record,  even  in  the  Gospels.  /  lyelieve,  I  do  believe,  as  thou  re- 
quirest,  although  not  in  the  degree  which  I  now  see  to  be  incumbent, 
and  for  which  I  am  no  less  dependent  upon  thee  than  for  the  miracle 

IP 


250  MARK  9;  24.  25. 

itself.  Ilelp^  succour,  therefore,  first  my  unbelief  (i.  e.  my  insufRciency 
of  faith),  and  then  my  wretched  child  whose  cure  depends  upon  it.  There 
is  singular  beauty  in  the  repetition  of  the  same  expressive  verb  which 
he  had  used  befoi-e  in  pi-aying  for  his  son's  relief  On  hearing  that  the 
only  requisite  is  faith,  and  feeling  that  his  own  was  weaker  than  it 
should  be,  he  withdraws^  as  it  were  for  a  moment,  his  original  petition, 
to  miplore  another  kind  of  help  or  succour,  in  default  of  which  the  first 
was  unattainable.  As  if  he  had  said,  'I  cried  for  help  or  succour,  in 
the  name  of  my  afflicted  child ;  but  finding  that  my  faith  is  the  condi- 
tion, and  that  although  I  believe  my  faith  is  still  defective,  I  now  cry 
for  help  and  succour  in  my  own  name,  that  m}'-  weak  faith  may  be 
strengthened,  and  that  thus  my  child  may  be  relieved  at  last.'  The 
episode  contained  in  these  four  verses  (21-24),  which  is  one  of  the 
most  exquisite  in  scripture  or  in  history,  authentic  or  fictitious,  is  pre- 
served to  us  exclusively  by  JMark,  and  commonly  regarded  as  among 
the  vivid  reminiscences  of  Peter,  under  whose  authority  an  old  tradi- 
tion represents  this  evangelist  as  having  written.  In  this,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  paralytic  at  Capernaum  (2,  5),  the  daughter  of  the  Syro- 
phenician  woman  (7,  29),  and  no  doubt  a  multitude  of  others  not  re- 
corded in  detail,  it  was  the  faith  of  the  friends  or  parents  that  secured 
the  miracle,  that  of  the  immediate  subject  being  in  abeyance,  although 
no  doubt  retro.spectively  exerted  afterwards.  This  furnishes  a  beauti- 
ful analogy,  though  not  a  formal  argument,  in  favour  of  accepting  the 
vicarious  faith  of  paients  or  their  nearest  representatives,  as  being  a 
sufficient  warrant  for  the  baptism  and  reception  into  Christ's  flock  or 
household,  even  of  such  as  cannot  as  yai  profess  their  own  faith,  al- 
though bound  b}'  the  act  of  those  who  take  their  place,  to  believe  here- 
after for  themselves,  and  to  assume  the  vows  which  others  have  made 
for  them. 

25.  When  Jesus  saw  that  the  people  came  runiniig 
together,  he  rebuked  the  foul  spirit,  sajiug  unto  liini, 
(Tliou)  dumb  and  deaf  spirit,  I  charge  thee,  come  out  of 
him,  and  enter  no  more  into  him. 

And  (or  hut)  Jesus  seeing  that  the  croiod  runs  together  (or  is  run- 
ning together)  upon  (him,  or  the  place  where  he  was  standing  as  the 
point  of  chief  attraction.)  The  present  tense  as  usual  calls  up  the  scene 
as  actually  passing.  The  Greek  verb,  although  found  only  here,  is 
evidently  formed  by  prefixing  to  a  verb  {I'un  together)  very  common  in 
the  classics  and  occasionally  found  in  the  New  Testament  (see  above, 
6,  33,  and  compare  Acts  3,  11.  1  Pet.  4,  4),  a  particle  which  gives  it  the 
specific  sense  of  running  together  to,  at,  or  upon  a  given  place  or  object, 
Avhich  is  hei-e  of  course  the  spot  where  Christ  was  standing  over  the 
unhappy  demoniac  as  he  wallowed  foaming  on  the  ground  before  him. 
This  circumstance  is  mentioned  here,  not  only  as  a  vivid  trait  impressed 
U])on  the  memory  of  those  who  saw  it,  but  as  furnishing  a  motive  for 
our  Lord's  healmg  him  at  once,  without  pursumg,  as  he  might  liavc 


MARK   9,  25.  26.  251 


done,  the  interesting  conversation  with  his  father.  RebuTced^  checked 
with  authority,  but  also  with  implied  disapprobation,  censure,  of  his 
presence  and  his  conduct  (see  above,  on  1,  25.  4,  39.  8,  32.  33,  and  for 
another  application  of  the  same  verb,  3,  12.  8,  30.)  Foul,  the  word  in- 
variably rendered  unclean  both  in  this  book  (e.  g.  1,  23.  3,  11.  5,  2.  6, 
7.  7,  25)  and  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  except  in  Rev.  18.  2, 
and  in  the  case  before  us,  where  there  can  be  ground  for  a  variation, 
since  it  means  here  as  elsewhere  morally  impure,  and  is  applied  in  that 
sense  to  the  demon  as  a  fallen  angel.  T.hou,  though  not  expressed  in 
Greek,  is  more  as-reeable  to  our  idiom  in  this  connection  than  the 

1    « 

article  {the  dunib  and  deaf.)  By  thus  describing  or  addressing  hnn, 
our  Lord  connects  the  morbid  state  of  the  demoniac,  in  the  clearest 
manner,  with  the  presence  of  the  demon,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  all 
oriental  metaphors-or  strong  personification  of  diseases.  I  charge  thee^ 
not  the  word  so  rendered  in  3,  12.  8,  30,  which  is  the  one  here  trans- 
lated rebiLked.^  nor  that  so  rendered  in  5,  43.  7,  36.  8, 15.  9,  9  ;  but  the 
one  rendered  by  command  in  1.  27.  6,  27.  39,  and  there  explained  as  a 
military  term  impl3-ing  high  authority  and  prompt  obedience.  And  no 
more  enter  into  him.^  a  merciful  provision  for  the  future,  not  invariably 
added  (compare  Matt.  12,  43-45.  Luke  11,  24-26),  and  therefore  men- 
tioned here  by  Mark  as  a  peculiar  or  at  least  a  striking  feature  of  this 
interesting  miracle. 

26.  And  (the  spirit)  cried,  and  rent  liim  sore,  and  came 
ont  of  liim,  and  he  was  as  one  dead ;  insomuch  that 
many  said,  He  is  dead. 

Crying  and  tearing  (or  convulsing)  him,  the  same  verbs  that  are 
used  above  in  vs.  20.  24,  and  there  explained.  According  to  the  com- 
mon text  the  participial  forms  are  neuter,  agreeing  with  spirit  under- 
stood, which  is  accordingly  supplied  in  the  translation.  But  the 
Vatican  and  several  other  ancient  copies,  followed  by  the  latest  critics, 
have  the  masculine  in  either  case,  a  variation  purely  formal,  as  spi?'it 
is  only  grammatically  neuter,  and  the  unclean  spirit  here  in  question 
was  as  really  a  person  as  the  man  (or  boy)  whom  he  possessed.  Cry- 
ing, not  being  followed  by  the  verb  said  or  the  words  spoken,  as  in  v. 
24,  denotes  an  inarticulate  cry  of  rage  or  pain,  and  is  therefore  not  at 
variance  with  the  previous  description  of  the  spirit  as  a  deaf  and  dumb 
one  (see  above,  on  vs.  17.25.)  Sore,  i.  e.  much  or  very  much,  a  literal 
translation  of  the  Greek  word  (see  above,  on  6,51.)  This  convulsion 
was  the  last  expression  of  malignant  rage  upon  the  part  of  the  retiring 
demon.  He  hecarne  as  dead,  or  as  (/(he  were)  «  dead  (man),  the  long 
continued  preternatural  excitement  being  succeeded  by  exhaustion  (see 
above,  on  7,  30.)  Insomuch  that  is  in  Greek  a  single  word  correspond- 
ing to  our  common  phrase  so  that,  both  forms  being  used  convertibly 
by  our  translators  (compare  1,27.45.  2,2.12.  3,  10  with  3,20.  4,1. 
32.  37.)  Many,  or  according  to  the  latest  text,  the  many  (the  accusa- 
tive of  a  phrase  now  almost  Anglicised,  ol  noXXoi),  i.  e.  the  majority, 
the  most  of  those  present  and  beholding.     Said,  He  is  dead^  seems  to 


252  MARK  9,  26.  27.  28. 

give  the  very  words,  whereas  in  Greek  the  form  is  that  of  indirect  ci- 
tation, said  that  he  was  dead.  This  is  another  slight  but  vivid  recol- 
lection, giving  an  air  of  life  and  truthfulness  to  the  entire  narrative, 
and  furnishing  an  admirable  subject  for  the  pencil,  in  the  eager  crowd 
surrounding  the  inanimate  form  of  the  demoniac,  with  the  anxious  face 
of  the  rejoicing  father,  and  the  august  person  of  the  Saviour  in  the 
centre  of  the  living  circle. 

27.  But  Jesus  took  him  hj  the  hand,  and  lifted  him 
iij),  and  he  arose. 

But  (or  and)  Jesus  talcing  (seizing,  laying  hold  of)  Mm  ty  the 
hand  (or  according  to  the  critics,  his  hand),  raised  (or  roused,  awak- 
ened) him^  and  he  arose  (or  stood  itj)-)  This  may  be  regarded  as  a  sort 
of  supplementary  or  secondary  miracle,  by  which  the  ^outh,  forsaken 
by  the  fiend  but  left  to  all  appearance  dead,  was  instantaneously  re- 
stored to  health  and  strength.  It  may  have  been  to  mark  this  twofold 
wonder  and  prevent  the  second  being  overlooked  in  admiration  of  the 
first,  that  Christ,  instead  of  making  him  recover  by  degrees  or  at  a 
word,  employed  the  usual  external  act  by  which  the  person  of  the 
healer  was  visibly  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  miracle.  For 
the  usage  of  the  verbs  in  this  verse,  see  above,  on  v.  10.  1,  31.  5. 
41.42. 

28.  And  when  he  was  come  into  the  house,  his  disci- 
ples asked  him  privately,  Why  could  not  we  cast  him 
out? 

We  now  learn  that  the  failure  of  the  nine  to  dispossess  this  demon 
was  not  merely  a  refusal  to  attempt  it,  but  an  actual  attempt  without 
success,  so  that  the  father  of  the  patient  spoke  advisedly  and  truly 
when  he  said  they  were  not  strong  enough  (or  had  not  power)  to  expel 
it  (see  above,  on  v.  18.)  This  implies  that  their  commission  to  work 
miracles,  and  more  particularly  miracles  of  this  kind  (see  above,  on  6, 
7),  still  continued,  and  that  this  was  not  a  mcie  unauthorized  attempt 
to  do  what  lay  entirely  beyond  their  province,  but  a  mysterious  and 
mortifying  failure  to  accomplish  what  they  had  before  done  (see  above, 
on  6,  30)  and  considered  themselves  still  authorized  and  empowered  to 
do.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  it  had  provoked  the  scorn  and 
captious  curiosity  of  the  scribes  (see  above,  on  vs.  14. 16),  nor  that  the 
disciples  took  the  first  opportunity  of  private  conversation  with  their 
master,  to  mquire  into  the  occasion  of  this  unexpected  failure  in  the 
most  remarkable  if  not  the  most  important  of  their  apostolic  functions. 
The  original  construction  of  the  first  clause  is  peculiar.  Ilim,  hacing 
,jone  into  the  house,  his  disciples  questioned.  Into  the  house  seems  to 
laoint  out  some  particular  dwelling  well  known  either  to  the  reader  or 
(he  writer,  or  at  least  to  mean  the  house  near  which  the  miracle  had 
been  performed.  But  the  original  expression  {^into  house,  without  the 
article)  means  simpl}''  in-doors  as  opposed  to  out-of-doors,  a  sense  in 


MAKK  9,  28.  29.  253 

which  we  have  already  met  with  it.  (See  above,  on  3, 19,  7, 17,  and 
for  the  meaning  home^  on  2, 1.  5. 19.  8,  3.  26.)  Ashed  him^  earnestly 
and  anxioush''  questioned  him  (see  above,  on  vs.  11.  16.  21.)  Pri- 
vately^  apart,  alone,  or  in  a  private  place  (see  above,  on  v.  2,  and  on  6, 
31.  7, 33.)  Why,  literally,  that,  the  same  elliptical  expression  (for 
lohy  is  it  that)  which  occurs  above  in  v.  11,  and  is  there  explained. 
Could  not  toe,  were  we  not  able  to  eiyel  it,  the  spirit,  here  again  gram- 
matically neuter,  though  the  version  has  the  masculine  form  (Zt/w),  a 
needless  variation  irom  that  used  in  v.  22,  where  the  neuter  pronoun  is 
not  expressed  as  it  is  here.  This  question  again  presupposes,  first,  that 
they  had  thought  themselves  able  to  perform  the  miracle,  and  then,  that 
they  had  found  themselves  unable  upon  trial.  It  was  not  therefore  a 
habitual  or  constant  inability,  but  one  which  took  themselves  and  others 
by  surprise,  and  gave  occasion  to  this  very  question. 

29.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  kind  can  come  forth 
bj  nothing,  but  by  prayer  and  lasting. 

The  answer  of  our  Lord  to  such  a  question  still  excites  the  strongest 
curiosity  and  interest,  and  none  the  less  so  from  its  brevity  and  doubt- 
ful meaning.  2'his  kmd,  genus,  species,  as  the  same  word  (yevos) 
means  in  Matt.  13,  47.  1  Cor.  12, 10.  28.  14, 10.  The  sense  may  then 
be,  this  peculiar  kind  of  suffering  or  infliction  cannot  be  removed  or 
put  an  end  to,  without  prayer  and  fasting.  But  as  this  construction 
takes  the  verb  (e^eX'^elp)  in  a  somewhat  unusual  and  forced  sense,  it  is 
better  to  give  the  noun  its  primary  (or  secondary)  meaning  of  a  race  or 
nation,  elsewhere  used  of  human  races  (see  above,  on  7,  26,  and  compare 
Acts  4,  36.  7, 13.  13,  26.  18, 2.  24.  Gal.  1, 14.  1  Pet.  2,  9),  but  here 
applied,  without  a  change  of  meaning,  to  another  race  or  order  of  beings, 
but  one  closely  connected  with  the  history  and  destin}'"  of  mankind  (see 
above,  on  3,  32.)  This  race  (of  demons,  evil  spirits,  fallen  angels)  can 
(is  able)  to  go  out  (i.  e.  to  leave  the  men  whom  they  possess)  innoth- 
ing  (i.  e.  in  the  use  of  no  means)  J)ut  (if  not,  except)  in  (i.  e.  in  the 
use  or  exercise  of)  prayer  and  fasting.  It  is  worthy  of  attention  that 
he  does  not  say  it  cannot  be  expelled  or  cast  out,  but  that  it  cannot  go 
or  come  out,  in  any  other  way  or  in  the  use  of  any  other  means. 
Whether  this  is  to  be  strictlj^  understood,  as  meaning  that  the  demons 
who  possessed  men  could  not.  even  if  they  would,  forsake  them  with- 
out prayer  and  fasting,  or  to  be  taken  as  a  less  emphatic  mode  of  sajdng 
that  they  cannot  be  expelled  or  cast  out  save  in  this  way,  is  a  question 
not  determined  by  the  text  or  context.  If  decided  by  the  general  laws 
of  language  and  interpretation,  one  of  which  is  that  the  strict  sense  is 
entitled  to  the  preference  when  other  things  are  equal,  then  the  Saviour 
must  be  understood  as  saying,  that  the  evil  spirit  once  in  occupation  of 
a  man  could  not.  even  of  its  own  accord,  forsake  him  without  prayer 
and  fasting.  JMost  interpreters,  however,  and  probably  most  readers, 
understand  him  as  declaring  these  to  be  indispensable  means  of  exor- 
cism, that  is  for  the  forcible  expulsion  of  the  foul  fiend  from  the  persons 
of  the  men  whom  he  possesses.     But  the  question  still  arises^  who  are 


254  MARK  9,  29.  30. 

to  employ  these  means  ?  Of  course  not  the  demon  to  be  dispossessed, 
but  either  the  demoniac  or  the  exorcist.  But  the  former  ex  liyjjothesi 
was  not  in  a  condition  to  make  use  of  any  means,  and  least  of  all  such 
spiritual  means  as  prayer  and  fasting;,  for  his  own  deliverance  ;  nor  do 
we  find  a  single  instance  of  a  person  thus  possessed,  so  long  as  the  pos- 
session lasted,  asking  or  even  consenting  to  be  freed  from  it,  but  always 
acting  as  the  organ  of  the  demon  in  resisting  every  attempt  at  dispos- 
session, even  on  the  part  of  Christ  himself  (see  above,  on  1,  24.  5,  7.) 
The  only  remaining  supposition  therefore  is,  that  they  who  undertook 
this  solemn  office  must  employ  the  means  here  mentioned.  There  is 
nothing,  either  in  the  words  themselves  or  the  connection,  to  require 
or  sanction  any  other  than  the  usual  and  proper  sense  of  jpraijer  and 
fasting^  not  as  stated  and  still  less  as  ceremonial  observances,  but  as 
special  or  extraordinar}''  means  and  modes  of  spiritual  discipline,  not 
independent  of  each  other,  but  the  abstinence  from  food  giving  energy 
and  life  to  the  devotions.  This  simple  discipline  is  here  prescribed, 
not  as  the  causa  qua ^  but  simply  as  a,  causa  sine  qua  no?i,  of  all  effectual 
exorcism.  The  idea  that  by  prayer  and  fasting  men  can  cast  out  devils 
or  work  other  wonders  now,  is  not  only  fanatical  but  foolish,  since  the 
precept  is  addressed  to  men  on  whom  the  power  of  performing  such 

(extraordinary  cures  had  been  conferred  expressly  (see  above,  on  6,  7), 
but  whose  exercise  of  this  extraordinary  power  had  been  hindered  by 
neglecting  their  own  spiritual  discipline,  which  they  are  here  taught  to 
renew,  as  something  indispensable  to  their  success.     As  well  might 
one  who  heard  a  surgical  instructor  tell  his  pupils  that  they  could  not 
I  operate  successfully  without  a  due  regard  to  their  own  diet,  sleep,  and 
exercise,  presume  to  act  as  surgeons  in  the  most  important  cases,  with- 
out any  preparation  but  these  dietetic  counsels.     It  is  not  easy  to  de- 
termine wiiether  this  reply,  preserved  by  INIark  and  Matthew  (Luke 
omitting  the  whole  conversation),  is  entirely  distinct  from  that  prefixed 
to  it  by  Matthew  (17,  20).  or  related  to  it  as  a  means  to  an  end  ;  i.  e. 
wliethcr  the  failure  of  the  nine  disciples  sprang  from  want  of  faith  as 
one  cause  and  from  neglect  of  prayer  and  fasting  as  another,  or  from 
debility  of  faith  occasioned  by  neglect  of  praj'er  and  fasting.     The  lat- 
ter is  more  probable  as   iNIark  omits  the  other  altogether,  which  he 
would  hardly  have  done,- if  he  had  undertaken  to  assign  the  cause  at 
1  all.  and  this  had  been  an  independent  part  of  it.     The  most  probable 
/  conclusion,  on  the  whole,  is  that  the  disciples,  relying  on  their  extraor- 
dinary powers,  had  neglected  the  spiritual  discipline  essential  to  their 
I   exercise,  because  essential  to  faith  or  confidence  in  Christ's  richt  and 
power  to  commission  them  as  wonder-workers,  and  to  sustain  them  in 
;  tlieir  practice  as  such,  a  deficiency  of  which  faith  is  the  other  reason 
for  their  present  failure  here  assigned  by  Matthew  (17,  20.) 

30.  And  they  departed  thence,  and  passed  through 
Galilee  ;  and  he  would  not  that  any  man  should  know  (it). 

And  thence^  from  that  X)lace  where  the  miracle  last  mentioned  had 
been  wrought,  and  of  which  we  only  know  that  it  must  have  been  near 


MARK  9,  30.  31.  '255 

the  scene  of  the  transfiguration  (see  above,  on  vs.  2,  14.)  Going  out^ 
departing,  or  more  specifically  going  forth  upon  their  journey  to  Caper- 
naum (v.  33),  or  their  circuit  which  had  been  interrupted  for  a  short 
time.  Tkci/  passed,  or  more  exsLCtly  jyassed  hi/,  or  travelled  along,  the 
object  being  understood  or  latent  in  the  next  phrase,  not  suggested  dis- 
tinctly by  the  context  as  it  is  in  11,  20  (where  it  is  the  fig-tree),  and 
in  15,  29  (where  it  is  the  cross),  but  more  like  the  use  of  the  same 
verb  in  2,  23,  where  also  it  is  followed  by  the  same  preposition,  IVie?/ 
travelled  along  (the  high  road,  or  their  own  appointed  course)  through 
Galilee,  performing  still  another  circuit  or  itinerant  mission  through 
that  province  (see  above,  on  1,  9.  14.  28.  39.)  Would  not,  wished  not, 
was  unwilling  (see  above,  on  v.  13,  and  on  7,  24.  9,  30.)  Any  man, 
i.  e.  an}^  one,  any  body  (see  above,  on  v.  8,  and  on  2,  21.  3,  27.  5,  3.  37. 
7,  24.)  KnoiD  (it),  i.  e.  the  fact  that  he  was  there  or  journeying  in 
this  way  ;  but  more  probably  it  means  knoio  (him),  i.  e.  recognize  him 
as  he  journeyed  or  before-  he  reached  the  points  where  he  was  pleased 
to  manifest  himself.  This  is  the  same  precaution  which  we  have  so 
often  met  with  to  escape,  as  far  as  possible,  the  pressure  of  the  crowd, 
and  to  prevent  all  dangerous  excitement  and  tumultuous  assemblies  of 
the  people.  But  in  this  case  there  was  an  additional  reason  for  his 
caution,  which  is  stated  in  the  next  verse. 


31.  For  lie  tauglit  liis  disciples,  and  said  unto  tliem, 
The  Son  of  man  is  delivered  into  the  hands  of  men,  and 
they  i.hall  kill  him  ;  and  after  that  he  is  killed,  he  shall 
rise  the  third  day. 

For  assigns  a  special  reason  of  the  secrecy  just  mentioned,  namely, 
that  ?ie  taught  his  disciples,  i.  e.  he  was  teaching  them,  not  at  any  one 
time  but  tliroughout  this  visitation,  the  sad  lesson  of  his  now  approach- 
ing passion.  This  implies  that  he  was  now  engaged  in  a  new  course  of 
instruction,  different  from  that  which  he  had  previou.>ly  given,  and 
intended  to  prepare  them  for  approaching  changes.  And  said  to  them, 
Mark's  favourite  expression  to  denote  a  change  of  subject.  (See  abOve, 
on  4,  13,  21.  24.  26.  30.)  77iat  necessarily  omitted  in  the  version  but 
here  emploj^ed  to  introduce  the  substance  of  his  new  instruction.  The 
Son  of  Man,  the  ^lessiah,  whom  3'ou  recognize  as  such,  though  clothed 
in  the  form  of  a  servant.  Is  delivered,  a  proplietic  piesent,  represent- 
ing the  event,  because  so  certain,  as  already  taking  place ;  oi-  a  literal 
present,  but  referring  to  the  plan  or  purpose  rather  than  its  execution. 
Tiie  delivery  here  spoken  of  is  not  that  by  Judas  to  the  Jews,  or  by 
the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles,  but  by  God  to  men,  abandoning  him  to  their 
will  (compare  Acts,  2.  23),  and  that  for  a  particular  end  perfectly  foi-e- 
seen.  And  they,  i.  e.  men,  as  yet  not  further  specified,  shall  kill  him, 
and  being  killed  (or  having  been  killed^,  on  the  lliird  day  he  shall  rise 
(or  be  resuscitated.)  The  reading  substituted  hy  the  latest  critics,  (fter 
three  days,  means  precisely  the  same  tiling  according  to  the  .Jewish 
method  of  computing  time.     This  is  the  third  distinct  prediction  of  his 


256  MARK  9,  31.  32 


passion  since  liis  recognition  by  the  twelve  disciples  as  the  true  Mes- 
siah.    (See  above,  on  8,  31.  9, 12.) 

32.  But  they  understood  not  that  saying,  and  were 
afraid  to  ask  him. 

But  they  (the  disciples)  understood  not.  in  Greek  a  netrativc  verb 
meanins;  not  to  know,  perceive,  or  understand,  according  to  the  context. 
That  (literally  the)  saijinff,  namely  that  which  they  had  just  heard  in 
relation  to  his  death  and  resurrection.  This  can  seem  incredible  oidy 
to  such  as  are  unable  to  divest  themselves  of  subsequent  associations, 
and  distin2;uish  between  what  we  now  see  cleai'ly  and  what  we  should 
have  seen  if  we  had  lived  before  the  death  of  Christ.  Precisely  the 
satne  diflerence  existed  and  exists  between  all  fulfilled  and  tnifullilled 
prophecy.  Predictions  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  and  in  many  other 
parts  of  scripture,  which  are  now  most  variously  understood,  will  seem 
to  those  who  witness  or  live  after  the  event,  too  clear  to  be  mistaken, 
too  distinct  and  unequivocal  to  bear  more  than  one  interpretation.  It  is 
easy  now  to  say  that  the  disciples  must  have  understood  him  when  he 
said  he  was  to  die  and  rise  again,  and  therefore  that  his  words  could 
not  have  been  so  plain  as  the  evangelists  report  them.  But  how  could 
the  interpreter  himself  have  known  whether  Christ's  predicted  cruci- 
fixion was  to  be  more  literal  than  that  which  he  enjoined  upon  his 
followers  (see  above,  on  8,  34),  or  whether  his  garments  were  to  be 
divided,  and  his  thirst  assuaged  with  vinegar  and  gall,  in  a  literal  or  figur- 
ative sense  ?  Because  we  know  now  how  these  things  were  to  come 
to  pass,  it  does  not  follow  that  we  could  have  known  before  they  did  .so 
come  to  pass.  The  mere  simplicity  and  definiteness  of  the  language 
matters  not,  so  long  as  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  the  principle  on  which 
we  are  to  understand  it.  Nay,  the  more  direct  and  unequivocal  the 
terms  may  seem,  the  more  uncertain  will  the  meaning  be,  until  this 
previous  question  is  determined.  There  is  therefore  nothing  in  the 
least  improbable,  much  less  incredible,  in  what  we  read  of  the  disciples' 
doubts  and  difficulties,  as  to  what  appears  to  us  so  perfectly  explicit 
and  intelligible.  The  onl}^  wonder  is  that,  having  both  the  author  and 
the  subject  of  these  prophecies  before  them,  they  did  not  obtain  from 
him  a  full  solution  of  the  riddles  which  perplexed  them.  But  of  this 
JNIark  gives  the  explanation  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us, 
they  ice  re  afraid  to  ash  {or  feared  to  question^  him.  Here  again  the 
narrative  is  far  more  "  psychological  "  and  true  to  nature  than  the  frivo- 
lous objection  urged  against  it.  However  easy  it  may  be  to  lay  down 
rules  a  priori,  as  to  what  men  will  or  will  not  do  in  certain  situations,  we 
all  know  b}"-  experience  that  such  rules  are  continually  falsified  in  prac- 
tice, that  men  do  hesitate  to  ask  the  most  important  questions  of  their 
nearest  relatives  and  dearest  friends,  under  the  influence  of  motives 
■which  they  cannot  analyze  themselves,  much  less  interpret  to  the 
minds  of  others.  But  if  such  reserves  and  reticencies,  often  most  dis- 
astrous to  the  interests  of  those  who  practice  them,  are  things  of  daily 
observation  and  experience,  in  cases  where  no  motive  can  be  traced  at 


MARK  9,  32.  33.  257 

all,  who  will  venture  to  deny  their  possibility  when  generated  or 
enforced  by  awful  reverence  for  Christ  as  personally  present,  and  per- 
haps by  vao-ue  forebodinirs  that  his  presence  was  to  cease,  and  an 
accompanying  aversion  to  know  more  distinctly  when  or  how.  Such 
feelings  have  in  multitudes  of  cases  sealed  the  lips  of  wives  and  hus- 
bands, parents  and  children,  brothers  and  sisters,  nay  of  mere  acquain- 
tances and  friends,  when  death  was  apprehended  but  its  time  and  cir- 
cumstances willingly  unknown,  and  even  banished  from  the  thoughts 
of  those  whom  interest  and  dut}'-  .should  alike  have  led  to  look  it  in  the' 
face  and  to  prepare  for  it.  But  if  such  things  as  these  are  natural  and 
possible  in  every-day  experience,  who  will  deny  the  possibility  or  aggra- 
vate the  guilt  of  the  reserve  here  practised  by  the  twelve  in  all  the 
weakness  and  darkness  of  their  pupillary  state,  when  they  knew  not 
what  their  master  meant  by  these  distressing  premonitions  of  his  death, 
and  were  afraid  to  ash  him  ? 

33.  And  he  came  to  Capernaum  ;  and  being  in  the 

house,  he  asked  them,  What  was  it  that  ye  disputed  among 

yourselves  by  the  way  ? 

And  lie  came  into  Capernaum^  which  had  long  been  the  centre 
of  his  operations,  and  where  all  his  missionary  journeys  terminated. 
Passing  over  a  remarkable  occurrence  introduced  just  here  by  Matthew 
(17,  24—27),  jMark  relates,  in  harmony  with  that  evangelist  (17,  28)  and 
Luke  (9,  4G).  an  interesting  conversation  which  appears  to  have  been 
held  soon  after  their  arrival,  and  which  serves  to  illustrate  Christ's 
omniscience  and  his  wisdom,  and  the  still  contracted  views  of  his  dis- 
ciples in  relation  to  his  kingdom,  thus  elucidating  further  their  misap- 
prehension of  his  prophecies  respecting  his  own  passion.  In  the  Jiouse^ 
a  definite  expression  meaning  in  his  own  house  or  the  house  where  he 
resided,  possibl}-  the  house  of  Peter.  (See  above,  on  1,  29.)  Being^ 
not  the  mere  verb  of  existence,  but  the  one  denoting  change  and  fre- 
quently  equivalent  to  our  becoming^  i.  e.  beginning  to  be.  Here  it 
neces.sarily  suggests  without  expressing  the  idea  of  his  previous  arrival, 
having  got  to  the  house,  as  Ave  might  say  in  more  familiar  English. 
He  ashed  tTiem,  questioned  them,  the  same  emphatic  compound  that 
occurs  so  often  in  this  book,  and  never  in  the  simple  sense  of  asking. 
Here  it  evidently  means  to  catechize,  examine,  in  a  .searching  and 
authoritative  manner.  What  (or  why')  in  the  icay  (along  the  road, 
upon  the  journey  to  Capernaum)  did  ye  dispute^  a  Greek  verb  hitherto 
translated  reason  in  this  book  (see  above,  on  2,  6.  8.  8,  16.  17).  here 
meaning  to  di.scuss  or  canvass  a  disputed  question.  Among  yourselves, 
or  to  yourselves,  i.  e.  apart  from  me.  and  as  you  thought  without  my 
knowledge.  The  idea  of  reciprocal  or  mutual  communication  is  other- 
wise expressed  in  the  ensuing  verse. 

34.  But  tliey  held  tlieir  peace  :  for  by  the  way  they 
had  disputed  among  themselves  who  (should  be)  the 
greatest. 


258  MARK  9,  34.  35. 


But  (or  and)  they  held  their  iwace,  were  silent,  a  verb  which  has 
no  exact  equivalent  in  English,  one  of  those  unaccountable  deficiencies 
which  constitute  so  striking  a  diversit}'  in  languages,  such  as  the  absence 
of  the  verb  to  have  in  all  Semitic  dialects,  of  stand  in  French,  &c.  They 
uere  silent,  no  doubt  both  with  wonder  and  confusion  at  this  startling 
question,  which  at  once  recalled  their  own  disgraceful  conflict  and 
evinced  their  master's  perfect  knowledge  of  it,  notwithstanding  the 
precautions  which  had  probably  been  used  to  hide  it  from  his  obser- 
vation. If  so,  we  have'heie  accumulated  proof  of  their  contracted  views 
and  still  debased  condition  both  of  judgment  and  affection  with  respect 
to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  This  they  still  regarded  as  an  earthly 
state,  in  which  they  were  to  occupy  distinguished  places  as  compared 
with  other  men ;  but  not  content  with  this  collective  eminence,  they 
now  disputed  as  to  rank  among  themselves.  Disjnited,  not  the  word 
so  rendered  in  v.  33,  though  ultimately  from  the  same  root ;  but  in 
that  the  prominent  idea  is  calculation,  while  in  this  it  is  discourse,  the 
Greek  verb  being  the  etymon  of  dialogue,  dialect^  and  dialectics. 
Among  themselves,  a  wholly  different  expression  from  the  one  in  the 
preceding  verse,  and  meaning  strictly  to  (or  2cith)  each  other.  Who 
(^should  he)  the  greatest,  or  more  exactl}'',  icMcli  (of  them)  %vas  greater 
(than  the  rest.)  It  is  not  improbable  that  such  disputes,  if  nbt  begun 
by  Peter,  James,  and  John,  were  at  least  occasioned  by  the  real  promi- 
nence which  Christ  assigned  them  in  the  college  of  apostles,  and  which 
could  hardly  fail  to  rouse  the  jealousy  and  envy  of  the  rest,  especially 
if  urged  unduly  and  unwisely  by  themselves.     (See  above,  on  v.  2.) 

35.  And  he  sat  down,  and  called  the  t^Yelve,  and  saitli 

unto  them,  If  any  man  desire  to  be  first,  (the  same)  shall 

be  last  of  all,  and  servant  of  all. 

And  hamng  sat  (or  sitting)  dozen,  i.  e.  when  he  had  sat  down  on 
coming  in,  which  seems  to  imply  that  this  conversation  took  place  at 
the  very  time  of  their  arrival  (Matt.  18,  1.)  Called  the  twelve,  not 
them,  as  in  vs.  33.  34,  which  may  perhaps  imply  that  what  is  there 
said  relates  to  a  still  greater  number.  If  any  (one)  desire,  the  verb 
so  often  rendered  will  and  would.  First  in  rank  and  dignity  compared 
with  others.  The  same,  which  seems  to  be  emphatic,  is  supplied  by 
the  translators,  the  subject  of  the  verb  being  not  expressed  at  all 
but  indicated  by  the  form  of  the  verb  itself,  which  simply  means  he 
shall  he.  This  appears  to  include  both  a  threatening  and  a  precept, 
according  to  the  motive  which  leads  any  one  to  wish  for  the  pre- 
eminence. If  actuated  bj''  a  selfish  pride,  he  shall,  as  a  righteous  retri- 
bution, be  defeated  in  his  plans  of  self-aggrandizement ;  instead  of  being 
fxvat,  he  shall  he  last  of  all,  iha  least  regarded  and  esteemed.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  he  wishes  to  be  truly  first,  in  usefulness  and  goodness, 
he  must  be  voluntarily  the  last  of  all,  not  only  as  to  rank  but  as  to  ac- 
tive service,  an  idea  sef)arately  expressed  in  the  concluding  words,  and 
sei^ant  of  all.  The  Greek  noun  is  not  that  which  means  a  slave 
(fioCXos),  but  one  which  properly  denotes  a  waiter  or  attendant  on  the 


MARK  9,  35.  36.  259 

table,  one  who  waits  upon  the  person  and  supplies  the  wants  of  his 
employer  or  his  master.  Hence  it  was  afterwards  applied,  not  only  to 
the  Christian  ministry  in  general,  as  stewards,  providers,  and  attend- 
ants on  the  people  of  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  3,  5.  2  Cor.  3,  6.  6.  4.  11,  23. 
Eph.  3,  7.  Col.  1,  7.  23.  25.  4,  7.  1  Th.  3,  2.  1  Tim.  4,  G)/but  more 
distinctively  to  the  lowest  permanent  church-oflice  recognized  in  scrip- 
ture, that  whose  primary  function  is  to  relieve  want,  and  which  is 
therefore  designated  by  this  ver}'  word,  in  Greek  SiaKovos,  in  English 
deacon  (Phil.  1, 1.  1  Tim.  3.  8.  12.)  In  the  case  before  us  it  is  used 
in  its  generic  sense  of  sercant  or  attendant  as  opposed  to  master,  but 
with  special  reference  no  doubt  to  the  specific  kind  of  service  which 
the  word  (or  its  equivalent)  would  necessarily  suggest,  to  wit,  that 
of  caring  for  the  welfare  and  supplying  the  necessities  of  others.  If 
any  one  wishes  to  be  truly  first,  he  must  become  so,  not  by  caring  for 
himself,  but  by  ministering  to  the  wants  of  others.  It  is  impossible 
to  overlook  the  fact  that  no  allusion  is  here  made  to  the  priority  of 
Peter,  which  must  therefore  have  been  temporary  and  conventional. 
For  if  he  was  in  any  other  sense  the  first  of  the  apostles,  how  could 
this  dispute  arise,  or  how  could  Christ  avoid  replying  that  the  question, 
as  to  one  of  them  at  least,  was  already  settled  ?  There  is  not  the 
slightest  hint,  however,  that  Peter  was  not  equally  involved  with  all 
the  rest  in  this  dispute  about  pre-eminence,  nor  any  reason  to  except 
him  from  the  oijeration  of  the  rule  here  laid  down,  whether  considered 
as  a  promise  or  a  threatening.  It  may  be  said  indeed  that  Peter's  pri- 
macy is  here  provided  for  by  showing  how  he  must  maintain  it,  and 
that  in  compliance  with  this  rule  his  successor  in  the  primacy  is  still 
called  serous  sercoriim  Dei.  But  besides  the  later  date  and  well-known 
origin  of  this  airo.;ant  humility  in  the  contest  for  pre-eminence 
between  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Constantinople  at  the  close  of 
the  sixth  centur}-,  the  sense  thus  put  upon  our  Saviour's  precept  is 
forbidden  by  its  very  terms,  which  are  conditional  but  personally  unre- 
stricted, lie  does  not  say.  If  Peter  wishes  to  be  first,  or  to  remain 
so,  but  if  any  (one)  so  wishes,  thus  throwing  open  the  distinction 
equallj''  to  all  who  chose  to  use  the  necessary  means  of  acquisition. 
On  the  other  hand,  considered  as  a  warning,  it  was  no  less  true  of 
Peter  than  of  Judas,  that  if  he  wished  to  be  the  first  in  any  selfish  or 
ambitious  sense,  he  should  be  treated  as  last  of  all  and  servant  of  all. 

36.  And  he  took  a  cliild,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of 
them ;  and  when  he  had  taken  him  in  his  arms,  he  said 
unto  tiiem  : 

"What  he  had  thus  taught  in  words  he  now  illustrates  by  an  em- 
blematic action,  not  only  admirably  suited  to  his  purpose,  but  afford- 
ing a  delightful  glimpse  of  his  personal  habits  and  relations.  Tahing 
a  cliild^  the  word  so  rendered  in  v.  24,  which,  although  a  diminutive 
in  form,  determines  nothing  as  to  age  or  size,  which  may  however  be 
conjectured  from  what  follows.  Set,  or  rather  stood  up,  caused  to 
stand.     Himy  literally  it,  the  pronoun  like  its  antecedent  being  of  the 


260  MAKK  9,  36.  37. 


neuter  form  and  common  gender.  In  tlic  midst  oftliem^  among  them, 
and  surrounded  hj  them.  Talcing  in  his  arms,  the  true  sense  of  a 
single  word  in  Greek,  derived  from  a  noun  denoting  the  bent  arm,  and 
itself  meaning  to  encircle  or  embrace  therewith.  This  lovel}'  trait, 
found  only  in  Mark's  picture,  is  a  proof  not  onl}-  of  our  Lord's  benig- 
nit}'  in  general,  but  of  his  love  for  children,  here  expressed  in  act  as 
it  elsewhere  is  in  words  (Matt.  19,  14.)  By  a  harmless  though  dubious 
conjecture  this  pleasing  incident  may  be  invested  with  a  still  more 
personal  and  lifelike  interest.  As  what  is  here  recorded  took  place, 
not  only  in  a  house,  but  in  the  house,  i.  e.  the  one  where  he  resided  in 
Capernaum  (see  above,  on  v.  28)  ;  and  as  we  have  some  ground  for 
supposing  this  to  be  the  house  of  Simon  and  Andrew  (see  above,  on 
1,  29)  ;  as  the  child  here  mentioned  is  not  said  to  have  been  brought 
in  from  abroad,  but  ap[)ears  to  have  been  casually  present  as  a  member 
of  the  household ;  it  is  not  impossible,  or  even  improbable,  that  the 
little  one,  thus  honoured  by  our  Lord's  caresses,  was  the  child  of  one 
of  his  apostles. 

37.  Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of  such  children  in 

my  name,  receiveth  me  ;  and  whosoever  receiveth  me,  re- 

ceiveth  not  me,  but  him  that  sent  me. 

Having  set  the  child  before  them  as  an  emblematic  model,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  give  an  oral  explanation  of  its  meaning.  Whosoever  (meaning 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  familiar  form  lohoever)  shall  receive,  in 
Greek  a  more  contingent  and  conditional  expression,  for  which  we  have 
no  exact  equivalent,  but  which  may  be  correctly  though  inadequately 
rendered  either  shall,  may,  or  does  receive.  One,  emphatically,  even 
one,  no  more,  as  if  to  state  the  minimum  or  lowest  case  su])posable, 
in  number  no  less  than  in  quality.  Of  such  children  as  the  one  before 
you,  so  young,  so  weak,  so  inexperienced,  so  insignificant  to  all  appear- 
ance. In  my  name,  or  rather,  on  my  name,  an  expression  foreign  to 
our  idiom,  but  suggesting  an  important  additional  idea,  over  and  above 
that  of  mere  repre.sentation,  namely,  that  of  confidence,  reliance,  trust. 
'  Whoever  receives  such  a  child  as  .sent  hj  me,  and  Avith  unwavering  reli- 
ance on  me,  as  entitled  so  to  send  him  and  to  require  his  appropriate 
reception.'  lieceiceth  me,  i.  e.  in  the  person  of  the  child  and  as  repre- 
sented by  him.  'If  I  send  even  such  a  child  to  represent  me,  its  re- 
ception will  be  estimated  b}^  me  just  as  if  it  were  my  own.'  The 
meaning  and  the  ground  of  this  are  obvious  enough ;  but  the 
connection  with  what  goes  before  is  not  .so  plain.  It  .seems  designed, 
however,  to  dispose  of  an  objection  which  would  naturally  ri.se  up  in 
the  minds  of  the  disciples.  '  We  are  willing,'  the}''  might  well  have 
said,  'to  renounce  all  i)ers()nal  distinction  and  [)re-cminence  ;  but  what 
will  then  become  of  our  official  influence  and  re[)resentative  authority 
as  thy  ai)ostles  ?  If  each  of  us  is  trying  to  be  last  of  all  and  .servant 
of  all,  who  will  regard  us  or  obey  us  as  ambassadors  for  Christ  ?  '  To 
this  our  Lord  replies  in  substance,  that  their  authority  and  influence 
in  that  capacity  depended  not  upon  their  personal  pretensions  or  as- 


MARK  9,  37.  38.  261 

sumptions,  but  upon  the  power  which  commissioned  them  and  which  they 
represented,  so  that  not  only  unpretending-  men,  but  an  unpretending 
child,  if  duly  accredited  as  his  commissioner,  must  be  received  (in  some 
sort)  as  himself,  or  if  rejected  by  those  to  whom  he  came,  must  be  reject- 
ed at  their  peril.  Not  me  hut  the  (one)  sending  me ^  the  further  applica- 
tion of  the  principle  just  laid  down  to  himself  and  his  commission  from 
the  Father.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  this  is  not  peculiar  to  your  ministry 
but  equally  appropriate  to  mine.  As  the  suitable  reception  of  my 
representatives  is  virtually  just  such  a  reception  of  myself,  so  a  suit- 
able reception  of  myself  is  virtually  just  such  a  reception  of  my 
Father.'  Peculiar  to  this  clause,  however,  is  the  strong  negative, 
receheth  not  7ne,  which  admits  of  two  interpretations,  or  rather  is 
suggestive  of  two  harmonious  but  distinct  ideas.  The  first  is,  he 
who  receives  me  receives  not  only  me  but  him  who  sent  me.  The 
other  is,  he  who  receives  me  receives  me  not  as  he  now  sees  me,  in 
appearance  a  mere  man,  but  in  my  real  character  and  nature,  as  co- 
equal and  coessential  with  the  Father  who  commissioned  me.  Far 
from  militating  therefore  against  Christ's  divinity,  this  clause  contains 
a  real  though  not  obvious  allusion  to  it. 

38.  And  John  answered  liim,  saying,  Master,  we  saw 

one  casting  out  devils  in  thy  name,  and  he  Iblloweth  not 

ns ;  and  we  forbade  him,  because  he  followeth  not  us. 

John  answered  Mm,  i.  e.  continued  the  conversation,  not  b}'  a  dii^ect 
reply  to  what  had  just  been  said,  but  by  suggesting  a  topic  closely  con- 
nected with  it,  and  belonging  to  the  same  great  subject.  (The  Vatican 
and  two  other  uncial  manuscripts,  together  with  the  Syriac  and  Coptic 
versions,  have  simply,  said  to  him.)  Master,  i.  e.  teacher,  as  opposed 
to  learner  or  disciple,  not  to  servant.  We,  the  whole  body  of  apostles, 
or  perhaps  John  and  James,  when  they  were  sent  forth  two  and  two. 
Saw,  when  or  where  is  not  recorded,  but  most  probably  when  absent 
from  their  master,  on  their  first  apostolical  mission.  One,  not  a  nu- 
meral, much  less  an  emphatic  one,  as  in  the  verse  preceding,  but  an 
indefinite  pronoun  meaning  some  (one),  and  perhaps  implying  that  his 
name  was  unknown  or  forgotten  or  of  no  importance  to  the  end  for 
which  the  fact  was  stated.  Casting  out  devils,  dispossessing  demons, 
m  the  exercise  of  similar  authorit}^  and  power  to  that  conferred  by 
Christ  upon  the  twelve  themselves.  In  thy  name,  i.  e.  claiming  so  to 
do  by  thy  authority,  and  probably  by  actual  invocation  of  the  name 
of  .Jesus.  And  lie  (or  according  to  the  latest  critics,  who)  follow etli  not 
lis,  by  which  he  does  not  seem  to  signify  dependence  or  inferiorit3^  but 
mere  association  with  the  twelve  in  following  Christ  himself,  as  ex- 
pressed  in  Luke's  report  (he  folloioeth  not  icith  us.)  The  repetition  in 
the  last  clause  is  rejected  by  the  latest  critics,  but  on  very  insufficient 
grounds,  and  is  more  likely,  even  on  their  own  rules,  to  have  been 
omitted  than  inserted  by  the  copyists  of  later  date.  We  have  here  an 
instance  of  the  natural  but  erroneous  disposition  to  infer  from  the 
existence  of  a  divinely  instituted  order,  that  its  author  can  or  will  do 


262  MARK  9,  38.  39. 


nothing  to  promote  the  same  end  independently  of  it.  A  mnch  earlier 
example  is  that  of  Joshua  in  Num.  11,  28,  and  a  similar  mistake  appears 
to  have  been  permitted  in  the  apostolic  bod}^  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
viding a  corrective,  to  be  afterwards  applied  to  all  like  cases,  which  are 
constantl}^  occurring,  even  in  relation  to  arrangements  and  institutions 
wholly  human  in  their  origin  and  destitute  of  all  divine  authority. 
But  even  where  this  does  exist  and  constitute  the  general  rule  of  human 
action,  God  reserves  the  right  of  acting  independently  of  that  rule,  as 
asserted  or  explained  in  the  ensuing  verses. 

39.  But  Jesiis  said,  Forbid  him  not ;  for  there  is  no 

man  which  shall  do  a  miracle  in  my  name,  that  can  lightly  ^ 

speak  evil  of  me. 

Fordid  Mm  not^  as  if  the  case  were  still  an  open  one  or  not  jei 
settled,  which  may  seem  to  imply  that  the  occurrence  was  not  only 
recent  but  in  progress.  As  it  is  not  probable,  however,  that  the 
twelve,  or  any  of  them,  would  have  ventured  upon  such  a  prohibition 
in  their  master's  presence  or  vicinity,  it  seems  best,  as  before  suggested, 
to  refer  this  incident  to  the  time  when  the  apostles  were  sent  forth 
upon  their  first  official  mission,  and  to  undeistand  our  Lord's  injunc- 
tion here  as  simply  calling  up  the  past  and  speaking  of  it  as  the 
present,  or  still  more  simply  as  a  general  direction  to  be  acted  on  in 
future,  u})on  which  hypothesis  the  pronoun  (Jiiin)  refers  to  any  one 
performing  the  same  acts  or  occupying  the  same  position.  The  reason 
of  the  rule  laid  down  is  given  in  the  other  clause,  as  indicated  by  the 
for.  No  man  (literally,  no  one)  shall  (or  loilT)  do,  and  b}''  parit}^  of 
reasoning  has  done  or  is  doing  now.  A  miracle,  litei-allj'-,  n  j)oicer,  i.  e. 
an  effect  of  suj^erhuman  power  as  a  proof  of  divine  agency  and  appro- 
bation. In  my  name,  upon  my  name,  precisely  as  in  v.  37  above. 
That  can,  literally,  and  can,  i.  e.  there  is  no  one  who  can  do  both. 
Ckui,  or,  more  emphatically,  sliall  (or  tcilV)  he  able,  an  independent 
verb  in  the  future  tense,  which  still  includes  all  imaginable  cases  of  the 
kind  in  question.  Lightly,  quickly,  hastily,  or  readil}',  an  instance  of 
the  figure  called  meiosis  or  litotes,  as  the  meaning  evidentl}'-  is,  not  that 
he  could  perform  the  act,  though  reluctantly  and  after  hesitation,  but 
that  he  could  not  perform  it  at  all.  Speah  evil  of  me,  the  same  verb 
that  is  rendered  curse  in  7,  10,  but  more  exactly  here,  as  it  includes  all 
degrees  of  evil  speaking  from  the  direst  imprecation  to  the  mildest 
censure,  and  is  here  used  to  denote  all  oral  expression  of  hostility, 
however  gentle  or  however  fierce.  The  essential  idea  is,  he  cannot  be 
opposed  to  me,  the  act  of  speaking  being  mentioned  only  as  the  natural 
and  usual  expression  of  the  inward  dispositions  and  affections.  Di- 
vested then  of  its  peculiar  form,  the  reason  which  the  Saviour  gives  for 
not  allowing  his  disciples  to  forbid  the  casting  out  of  demons,  or  other 
miraculous  performances  of  which  they  are  a  chosen  specimen  or  repre- 
sentative, is  that  the  miracles  themselves  were  a  more  conclusive  pi-oof 
of  a  divine  conmiission  than  mere  association  with  the  twelve  could  be. 
Although  the  age  of  miracles  is  past,  and  therefore  no  such  case  can 


MARK  9,  39.  40.  41.  263 


now  arise,  the  principle  involved  is  evidently  pertinent  to  many  other 
cases,  and  especially  to  that  of  spiritual  influences  visibly  attending  cer- 
tain ministrations,  and  atfordinga  more  certain  test  of  their  validity  than 
any  mere  ecclesiastical  connection  or  commission.  It  is  no  objection  to 
this  application  or  extension  of  the  principle  here  laid  down,  that 
apparent  spiritual  attestations  may  be  spurious ;  for  so  might  the 
miraculous  appearances  of  old,  and  as  the  rule  originally  laid  down  was 
to  be  applied  to  none  but  genuine  performances  of  that  kind,  so  the 
rule  as  here  extended  is  to  be  applied  to  none  but  genuine  and  valid 
proofs  of  the  divine  approval,  to  determine  which  is  no  part  of  our 
present  task,  though  easily  deducible  from  scripture  and  experience. 

40.  For  he  that  is  not  against  ns  is  on  our  part. 

There  is  a  singular  variety  of  text  in  this  verse,  many  copies  reading 
against  you  and /or  you,  some  against  you  and/br  us,  some  against  us 
and/br  you.  The  two  last  readings  (those  which  have  both  the  first 
and  second  person)  change  the  sense  entirely  or  rather  convert  it  into 
nonsense,  the  distinction  between  you  and  us  being  perfectly  irrelevant 
if  not  unmeaning.  The  one  first  mentioned -(yo?/ and  you)  is  supported 
by  the  greatest  number  of  uncial  manuscripts,  but  the  common  text 
(us  and  us)  by  those  of  most  age  and  authority  (including  B  and  0, 
the  famous  Vatican  and  Paris  copies.)  There  is,  however,  little  choice 
between  them  as  the  sentence  is  proverbial,  and  the  pronouns,  whether 
of  the  first  or  second  person,  are  descriptive  not  of  certain  classes,  but 
of  men  in  general,  or  of  any  parties  who  sustain  or  may  sustain  the 
mutual  relations  here  supposed.  On  our  part  (or  side),  though  a  cor- 
rect translation  as  to  sense,  impairs  the  beautiful  antithesis  of  form  in 
the  original  {against  us,  for  us.)  Like  other  proverbs,  this  exhibits 
only  one  phase  or  aspect  of  the  truth  expressed,  to  wit,  that  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  and  to  a  certain  length,  the  absence  of  hostility  may  be  suf- 
ficient evidence  of  ftiendship.  It  is  no  less  true,  however,  and  therefore 
perfectly  consistent  with  this  saying,  that  in  another  sense,  or  under 
other  circumstances,  the  neglect  of  positive  co-operation  is  itself  a  proof 
of  enmity,  So  far  are  these  two  aphorisms  from  being  contradictory, 
that  both  ma}^  be  exemplified  in  the  experience  of  the  very  same  per- 
sons. For  example,  Nicodemus,  by  refusing  to  take  part  with  the 
Sanhedrim  against  our  Lord,  although  he  did  not  ventuie  to  espouse 
his  cause,  proved  himself  to  be  upon  his  side;  but  if  he  had  continued 
the  same  course  when  the  crisis  had  arrived,  he  would  equally  have 
proved  himself  to  be  against  him.  The  pretence  of  inconsistency  be- 
tween the  words  of  this  verse  and  the  saying  recorded  in  Luke  (9,  50), 
is  therefore  as  absurd  as  such  a  charge  would  be  against  Solomon's 
twin  maxims  (Prov.  20,  4.  5.)  The  meaning  of  the  words  before  us 
evidently  is,  that  the  case  proposed  by  John  was  one  in  which  the 
maxim  quoted  would  apply,  however  numerous  the  instances  in  which 
the  very  opposite  might  be  affirmed. 

41.  For  whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of  water  to 


264  MARK  9,  41.  42. 

drink  in  my  name,  because  ye  belong  to  Christ,  verily  I 
say  unto  you,  lie  shall  not  lose  his  reward. 

Instca(3  of  overlooking  or  ignoring  such  conclusive  evidence  of  union 
with  the  Saviour  as  that  furnished  by  the  working  of  a  miracle  ex- 
pressly in  his  name  and  in  avowed  reliance  upon  him,  they  ought  rather 
to  appreciate  the  slightest  tokens  of  regard  to  him,  even  the  most  tri- 
fling acts  of  kindness  to  themselves  on  his  account,  as  he  himself  would 
note,  and  as  it  were  acknowledge,  every  such  expression  of  attachment, 
even  the  most  humble  and  intrinsically  worthless.  For  wJiosoever 
shall  (whoever  may)  give  to  drinl:  a  single  word  in  Greek,  analogous 
to  our  verb  to  icate)\  but  derived  from  the  noun  drlnl\  and  applied 
both  to  plants  (by  Xenophon)  and  to  men  (by  Plato.)  From  the 
same  root  comes  the  following  noun,  cup,  or  any  drinking  vessel,  the 
same  word  that  is  used  above  in  7,  4.  8,  and  there  explained.  A  cuji 
(or  1)0201)  of  water  is  here  mentioned  as  the  cheapest  of  all  bodily  re- 
freshments, and  therefore  suitable  to  represent  the  smallest  acts  of 
kindness  done  by  man  to  man.  In  my  name,  or,  according  to  the 
critics,  in  name,  i.  e.  for  the  avowed  reason,  orexpressly  on  the  ground, 
tJiat  ye  are  Christ''s,  the  phrase  emp]o3'ed  in  the  translation  of  1  Cor. 
3,  23,  and  at  once  more  exact  and  more  expressive  than  the  one  here 
given,  though  correct  in  sense,  hecaiise  ye  belong  to  Christ.  Verily 
(Amen)  I  say  unto  you^  implying  that  what  follows  is  a  certain  and  a 
solemn  truth.  He  shall  not,  a  particularly  strong  form  of  negation, 
being  that  employed  above  in  v.  1  and  there  explained.  His  reward^ 
i.  e.  the  benefit  of  such  regard  to  Christ,  proved  by  kindness  to  his  fol- 
lowers. The  doctrine  of  legal  merit  is  no  more  involved  in  this  expres- 
sion than  in  the  many  passages  which  teach  that  men  are  to  be  dealt 
with  in  proportion  to  their  works,  although  salvation  is  entirely  gratu- 
itous. The  connection  of  this  verse  with  that  before  it  seems  to  be, 
that  as  Christ  himself  took  notice  of  the  slightest  proofs  of  love  to  him, 
his  followers  ought  not  to  overlook  the  greatest.    • 

42.  And  whosoever  shall  offend  one  of  (these)  little 
ones  that  believe  in  me,  it  is  better  for  him  that  a  mill- 
stone were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he  wei-e  cast  into 
the  sea. 

Having  answered  John,  the  Saviour  now  resumes  the  thread  of  his 
discourse  wliere  John  had  broken  it,  and  carries  out  still  further  the 
idea  of  v.  37,  that  they  who  represented  him  must  be  received  as  he 
would  be  received  in  person.  This  rule  he  had  already  there  laid  down 
in  reference  to  his  ajjostles,  and  by  parity  of  leasoning  toall  his  faithful 
ministers,  so  far  as  they  officially  do  represent  him.  But  he  now  pro- 
ceeds in  this  direction  to  a  greater  and  an  almost  startling  length,  by 
declarino;  the  same  thine:  to  be  true  of  all  believers,  even  the  weakest 
and  the  most  despised.  Reverting  to  the  case  before  suggested  of  a 
little  child,  perhaps  reminded  of  it  by  the  real  child  still  in  his  presence 
or  his  arm.s,  he  now  declares  the  rights  and  the  prerogatives  belonging 


mark:  9,  42.  265 

to  the  humblest  of  his  people.  Whosoever  sy^«?Z  (whoever  may)  offend^ 
literally  scarulcdize,  the  verb  employed  above  in  4,  17.  G,  3,  and  there 
explained  as  primarily  meaning  to  obstruct  a  person's  path  by  snares 
or  stumbling  blocks,  and  then  in  a  moral  application  to  betray  another 
into  sin  or  error,  either  by  precept  or  example,  or  in  any  other  way 
conceivable.  One^  even  one,  the  same  emphatic  usage  of  the  numeral 
of  which  we  have  already  had  an  instance  in  v.  37.  Of  these  (literall  v, 
the)  little  (ones),  the  (ones)  ieliecing  in  me,  i.  e.  contiding  in  me  as  a 
Saviour.  This  may  refer  to  children  in  the  proper  sense,  but  onl\'  as 
believers,  and  the  weakest  and  most  defenceless  class  of  believers,  who 
might  therefore  appear  liable  to  be  maltreated  with  impunity.  But 
Christ  himself  is  their  protector,  and  denounces  the  severest  doom  on 
such  as  take  advantage  of  their  weakness  to  betray  them  into  sin  and 
error.  As  children,  if  referred  to  here,  are  only  specified  as  being  the 
most  feeble  and  defenceless  of  believers,  what  is  said  of  them  is  no  less 
true  of  all  who  in  these  respects  resemble  them,  whatever  be  their 
age ;  and  thus  we  reach  the  same  conclusion  to  which  others  come  by 
understanding  little  (ones)  in  this  verse,  not  of  children,  but  of  weak 
and  humble  Christians,  who  are  certainly  referred  to,  either  indirectly 
or  directly.  Tiie  guilt  and  danger  of  scandalizing  such,  in  the  peculiar 
sense  before  explained,  is  here  expressed  with  fearful  emphasis,  by 
saying  of  the  person  who  commits  this  aggravated  sin,  that  it  is  better 
for  Mm  (literally,  good  for  him  rather)  not  that  a  millstone  were 
hanged,  but  if  a  millstone  hangs  (literally,  lies  around)  his  nech  and 
(not  he  were  cast,  as  a  supposed  case,  but)  he  has  been  cast  (as  an  ac- 
complished fact)  into  the  sea.  The  sense  is  clear,  although  the  form 
of  expression  is  exceedingly  unusual,  presenting  two  contingencies,  or 
rather  actual  experiences,  in  the  case  of  one  and  the  same  person, 
and  comparing  thein ;  supposing  on  the  one  hand  that  he  has  offended, 
scandalized,  a  weak  believer ;  on  the  other,  that  a  millstone  is  around 
his  neck  and  he  already  cast  into  the  sea  ;  and  then  declaring  that  of 
these  two  possibilities  the  latter  is  the  better  for  him,  i.  e.  for  his  in- 
terest or  welfare,  even  if  he  is  to  perish.  The  moral  or  judicial  sen.se 
of  more  just,  more  deserved,  is  equally  consistent  with  the  usage  of 
the  word,  but  not  with  its  connection  here ;  for  with  what  is  it  com- 
pared, or  in  comparison  with  what  is  such  an  end  pronounced  to  be 
more  just  or  worthy.^  A  millstone,  either  put  for  any  heavy  weight 
or  as  the  very  weight  of  old  attached  to  convicts  who  were  to  undergo 
the  punishment  of  cata'pontisrn  or  submersion  in  the  sea.  The  suppo- 
sition that  our  Lord  alludes  directly  to  this  practice,  though  intrinsi- 
cally probable,  is  not  essential  to  the  force  and  beauty  of  this  terrible 
denunciation,  which  is  equally  impressive  and  significant  if  understood 
of  an  imaginary  case,  or  of  a  single  real  instance  of  such  punishment. 
As  to  the  connection  with  v.  37,  this  appears  to  be  a  wide  step  in  ad- 
vance of  what  is  there  affirmed,  to  wit,  that  he  Avho  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge even  a  mere  child,  sufficiently  accredited  as  sent  by  Christ  to 
represent  him,  will  be  punished  as  he  would  be  for  rejecting  Christ 
liimself  But  more  than  this,  he  who  even  leads  the  weakest  of  be- 
12 


266  MARK  9,  42.  43 


lievers,  though  without  authority  or  oificej  into  sin,  would  better  have 
been  lying  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 

43.  And  if  thy  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off;  it  is  better 
for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than  having  two  hands 
to  go  into  hell,  into  the  lire  that  never  shall  be  quenched. 

By  a  perfectly  natural  and  even  obvious  association  of  ideas,  the 
Redeemer  now  proceeds  still  further  in  the  same  direction.  Having 
warned  his  hearers,  and  especially  the  twelve,  against  the  sin  of  scandal- 
izing others,  even  the  weakest  and  most  helpless  of  believers,  he  now 
warns  them  no  less  solemnly  against  the  risk  of  being  scandalized  them- 
selves and  by  themselves,  i.  e.  of  being  tempted  and  betrayed  into  sin 
by  any  thing  belonging  to  themselves,  however  highly  valued  and  how- 
ever fondly  cherished.  This  idea  he  expresses  in  a  manner  which  may 
be  described  as  characteristic  of  his  teaching,  i,  e.  by  assuming  an  ex- 
treme case  and  supposing  that  a  man's  own  members,  even  those  which 
he  particularly  prizes,  and  to  lose  which  would  be  little  less  than  death 
itself,  are  incurable,  incorrigible  causes  or  occasions  of  transgression 
against  God.  The  case  is  not  presented  as  a  real  one,  or  one  which 
there  is  reason  to  anticipate  in  actual  experience;  but  if  it  should  occur, 
if  the  only  alternative  presented  to  a  man  were  deliberate  habitual 
transgression  or  the  loss  of  his  most  valuable  members,  what  would 
be  his  choice  ?  If  he  prefer  his  bodily  integrity  and  purchase  it  at  such 
a  price,  he  has  reason  to  believe  himself  a  reprobate.  But  if  in  the  ex- 
treme case  here  supposed,  he  would  be  ready  to  choose  mutilation 
rather  than  a  life  of  sin,  that  choice  mcludes  all  minor  cases,  as  the 
whole  includes  the  part,  and  as  the  greater  comprehends  the  less.  This 
important  lesson  is  conveyed  by  a  series  of  ideal  cases,  differing  chiefly 
in  the  member  which  the  man  is  called  to  sacrifice  in  order  to  secure 
salvation,  but  in  other  respects  gaining  the  same  end  by  solemn  repeti- 
tion, so  that  each  succeeding  verse  is  like  the  chorus  or  burden  of  a 
funeral  dirge.  In  the  one  before  us,  the  antithesis  presented  is  between 
the  loss  of  one  hand  with  salvation  or  admission  into  heaven,  and  the 
use  of  two  hands  with  perdition  or  the  everlasting  j^ains  of  hell.  This 
last  idea  is  expressed  by  a  Greek  word  made  up  of  two  Hebrew  ones, 
originally  meaning  the  valley  of  Ilinnom.  As  a  local  designation,  it 
described  the  valley  on  the  south  side  of  Jerusalem,  famous  of  old  as  a 
favourite  place  of  idolatrous  worship,  and  especially  of  the  horrid  ser- 
vice paid  to  Moloch  by  causing  children  to  pass  through  the  fire  (Lev. 
18,  21.  20,  2.  2  Kings  23, 10.  2  Chr.  33,  G.  Jer.  19,  2.  32,  35.)  Hence 
in  times  of  reformation,  and  especially  under  Josiah,  the  last  good  king 
of  Judah,  this  valley  was  defiled,  probably  by  being  made  a  place  of 
deposit  for  the  refuse  and  offal  of  tlie  city  (2  Kings  23, 10.)  It  is  often 
added  that  to  consume  this  refuse  fires  were  kept  perpetually  burning; 
but  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  of  this  fact,  and  the  latest  writers 
suppose  the  sacrificial  fires  of  JNIoloch  to  have  given  rise  to  the  peculiar 
usage  of  the  word   Gehenna^  to  denote  the  place  of  future  torment,  or 


MAEK  9,  43-47.  267 

what  in  modern  English  is  called  hell.  The  Jire^  the  unquenchable^  or 
unextinguished,  a  description  borrowed  from  the  fires  already  men- 
tioned, but  employed  to  represent  the  everlasting  torments  of  the 
damned. 

44.  Where  tlieir  worm  dietli  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 

quenched. 

The  terrific  description  is  continued  with  a  sort  of  fearful  repetition, 
adding  greatly  to  its  solemn  grandeur.  Where  (referring  to  Gehenna, 
as  already  mentioned  in  the  verse  preceding)  tlieir  worm  (i.  e.  the  car- 
cass-worm which  preys  upon  the  bodies  of  those  burning  there)  dieth 
not.  literally,  ends  not^  ceases  not  to  live,  the  same  verb  that  is  used 
above,  in  7, 10,  and  there  explained,  but  here  suggesting  the  additional 
idea  that  the  worm  not  only  never  dies,  but  never  ends  or  interrupts 
its  decomposing  and  devouring  process.  This  terrific  figure  of  an  end- 
less dissolution,  an  eternal  putrefaction,  is  directly  borrowed  from 
Isaiah  (JSQ^  24),  but  more  remotel}'-  from  the  fires  of  Tophet.  And  the 
iire  is  not  quencJied^  a  sort  of  poetical  variation  of  the  fire  unquenched 
(a  cognate  form)  in  the  preceding  verse. 

45.  46.  And  if  thy  foot  oflend  thee,  cut  it  off;  it  is 
better  for  thee  to  enter  halt  into  life,  than  having  two  feet 
to  be  cast  into  liell,  into  tlie  fire  that  never  shall  be 
quenched;  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched. 

The  same  supposition  is  then  made  as  to  the  foot,  and  the  same 
comparison  or  contrast  between  going  lame  or  maimed  into  life  (i.  e.  a 
state  of  future  blessedness),  or  retaining  both  feet  to  be  thrown  or 
cast  (a  stronger  terra  than  that  before  used,  and  suggesting  forcible  not 
voluntary  entrance)  into  hell  (Gehenna),  the  fire  unquenched  or  un- 
quenchable, an  epithet  applied  by  Homer  to  undying  fame,  exhaustless 
strength,  and  by  ^schylus  (who  strangely  but  sublimely  confounds 
fire  and  water)  to  the  ceaseless  flow  of  ocean.  Then  follows  without 
any  change  (in  v.  46)  the  burden  of  Isaiah's  melancholy  song,  the  repe- 
tition of  which  gives  it  a  new  pathos,  as  applied  still  more  explicitly  by 
Christ  to  the  eternal  pains  of  human  sufierers  and  sinners. 

47.  48.  And  if  thine  eye  oiFend  thee,  pluck  it  out ; 
it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingxlom  of  God  with 
one  eye,  tlian  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire, 
where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched. 

The  only  change  in  this  third  strophe  is  the  substitution  of  the  eye 
in  the  first  clause, of  the  corresponding  terms,  one-eyed^  hating  two  eyes^ 
in  what  follows,  and  of  the  phrase  'kingdom  of  heaven  for  eternal  life^ 
here  described  as  the  final  and  eternal  consummation  of  that  very  king- 


2G8  MARK  9,  48.  49. 

dom,  wliich  our  Lord  was  now  erecting  in  the  hearts  of  his  disciples, 
and  was  soon  to  organize  by  their  means,  under  the  direction  of  his 
Spirit,  in  societ}'-  and  on  the  ruins  or  rather  the  unchangeable  founda- 
tion of  the  ancient  cliurch.  These  changes,  wliile  they  multipl}'-  tlie 
real  yet  ideal  cases  in  which  the  alternative  may  be  presented,  also 
serve  to  render  more  impressive  the  reiteration  of  the  phrases  which 
remain  unaltered,  thus  imparting  to  the  passage  a  strophical  or  rhyth- 
mical form,  which  is  essentially  poetical,  though  free  from  the  conven- 
tional restraint  of  rhj'me  or  even  of  prosodial  measure.  This  peculiar 
structure  is  among  the  oldest  forms  of  composition  extant,  being  found 
in  the  first  cosmogony  of  Moses  (Gen.  1,  1-2,  3),  which,  for  this  and 
other  reasons,  has  been  thought  by  some  to  be  a  relic  of  primeval  com- 
position, handed  down  perhaps  from  Adam  through  a  few  intervening 
links  to  jNIoses,  and  incorporated  by  him  in  his  history,  or  placed  before 
it  as  a  still  more  ancient  text  or  theme,  but  under  the  divine  direction 
and  the  same  unerring  seal  of  inspiration.  However  this  may  be,  there 
is  something  most  impressive  in  our  Lord's  adoption  of  this  measured 
prose,  which  unlike  ordinary  poetry,  may  live  through  any  number  of 
translations,  and  was  possibly  intended  in  the  present  case,  as  in  the 
older  one  just  mentioned,  to  impress  these  solemn  warnings  on  the  mem- 
ory of  those  who  heard  but  never  read  them.  If  this  may  be  assumed, 
the  passage  furnishes  an  interesting  glimpse  of  his  peculiar  didaclie  or 
mode  of  teaching,  in  addition  to  the  others  which  have  been  already 
noticed. 

49.  For  every  one  shall  be  salted  with  fire,  and  every 
sacrilice  shall  be  salted  with  salt. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  passages  in  the  whole  book,  both 
the  meaning  of  the  terms  and  the  connection  with  what  goes  before 
being  doubtful  and  obscure.  Among  the  various  interpretations  which 
have  been  proposed,  one  or  two  points  seem  to  be  agreed  upon,  which 
may  therefore  be  first  stated  as  a  basis  for  determining  the  other  ques- 
tions. It  is  commonly  admitted  that  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  is  an 
allusion  to,  if  not  a  direct  quotation  from  the  law  of  sacrifice  in  Lev.  2, 
13,  from  the  Septuagint  version  of  which  it  differs  only  by  the  change 
of  gift  to  sacrijice,  a  term  used  in  the  older  classics  to  denote  the 
sacrificial  act  or  service,  but  in  later  Greek  extended  to  the  sacrificial 
victims,  or  the  animals  admitted  to  the  altar.  It  is  also  agreed  that 
there  is  allusion  to  the  antiseptic  and  conservative  effects  of  salt,  and 
that  these  are  figuratively  transferred  to  fire.  But  what  fire  is  meant, 
and  in  what  sense  it  is  conservative,  and  how  the  whole  verse  is  related 
to  wliat  goes  before  and  follows,  these  are  questions  as  to  which  there 
is  a  great  diversity  of  judgment.  The  different  hypotheses  entitled  to 
attention  may,  however,  be  reduced  to  two,  essentially  distinguished 
by  tlie  fiict  that  one  of  them  regards  this  as  a  promise,  and  the  other 
as  a  threatening  or  a  Avarning.  According  to  the  former  view,  our 
Lord,  referring  to  the  well  known  requisition  of  the  law  already  men- 
tioned, that  every  sacrificial  victim  must  be  salted,  that  is,  rubbed  or 


MARK  9,  49.  50.  269 

sprinkled  with  salt,  and  also  to  the  universal  association  between  salt 
and  soundness  or  purity  of  meats,  avails  himself  of  these  associations 
to  assure  his  hearers,  that  every  one  whom  God  approves,  or  towar  Is 
whom  he  has  purposes  of  mercy,  though  he  may  pass  through  the  fire 
of  persecution  and  affliction,  including  the  painful  self-denial  recom- 
mended in  the  previous  context,  will  be  purified  and  saved  thereby,  or 
as  an  offering  to  God,  salted  with  such  fire,  just  as  the  literal  sacrifice 
was  salted  at  the  altar.  This  is  certainly  a  good  sense  in  itself,  and 
favoured  by  the  strong  analogy  of  the  fiery  trial  which  Peter  mentions 
in  his  first  epistle  (4,  12.)  The  objections  to  it  are,  that  it  gives  to 
fire  a  sense  entirely  dilTerent  from  that  in  the  preceding  context,  and 
that  it  does  not  explain  the  logical  connection  indicated  by  the  for. 
The  other  explanation  supposes  the  connection  to  be  this.  Our  Lord 
had  six  times  spoken  of  eternal  toi'ments  as  unqiiencliaNe  Jire,  from 
which  no  man  could  escape  without  self-denial  and  the  mortification  of 
sin.  The  immediately  preceding  verse  concludes  with  the  solemn  repe- 
tition of  that  fearful  saying,  loliere  their  woi'm  dietJi  not  and  the  fire  is 
not  quenched,  i.  e.  their  sufferings  are  endless  and  unceasing.  But  how 
can  the  subject  of  such  sufferings  escape  annihilation  ?  By  being  kept 
in  existence  for  the  very  purpose  of  enduring  them.  This  awful  fact 
he  clothes  in  a  figurative  form  derived  from  the  sacrificial  ritual  of 
Moses.  Every  victim  must  be  rubbed  with  salt,  the  symbol  of  incor- 
ruption  and  preservation.  So  these  victims  shall  be  salted,  not  with 
salt  but  fire.  The  divine  wrath  that  consumes  them  will  preserve 
them.  i.  e.  from  annihilation,  not  from  suffering,  bat  for  suffering.  It 
is  no  objection  to  this  view  of  tlie  passage  that  it  takes  salt  in  a  sense 
not  justified  by  usage,  which  requires  it  to  mean  preservation  for  a 
good  end  or  salvation.  This  is  a  mere  assumption  just  as  easy  to  deny 
as  to  afiirm.  The  essential  idea  of  the  figure  is  preservation  from  de- 
struction, or  continued  existence,  and  may  just  as  well  be  used  both  in 
a  good  and  a  bad  sense,  as  leaven  (which  the  law  excluded  from  all 
offerings  no  less  strictly  than  it  required  salt)  is  used  in  both  (see 
above,  on  8,  15).  and  just  as  we  might  say  that  the  lost  sinner  will  be 
saved  from  annihilation,  although  not  from  ruin.  On  the  other  hand, 
this  interpretation  has  the  advantage  of  continuing  tlie  train  of  thought 
unbroken,  taking  fire  in  the  same  sense  as  throughout  the  previous 
context,  and  concluding  this  terrific  warning  in  a  manner  far  more 
appropriate  than  a  promise  of  salvation  by  the  fire  of  suffering,  how- 
ever pleasing  and  delightful  in  itself. 

50.  Salt  (is)  good,  but  if  the  salt  have  lost  his  salt- 
ness,  wherewith  will  ye  season  it  ?  Have  salt  in  your- 
selves, and  have  peace  one  with  another. 

According  to  the  first  interpretation  given  of  v.  40,  this  must  be 
taken  as  a  sudden  change  of  figure  or  in  the  meaning  of  the  figure 
there  used.  Salt,  which  there  denotes  the  conservative  or  purifying 
virtue  of  affliction,  now  means  heavenly  grace  or  wisdom  which  the 
disciples  are  enjoined  to  cherish  in  their  own  hearts.     This  is  certainly 


270  MARK  0,  50. 

a  violent  transition,  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity,  and  furnish- 
ing a  strong  ground  of  preference  for  any  exegetical  hypothesis  by 
which  it  is  dispensed  with.  This  is  effected  by  the  other  explanation, 
which  supposes  this  to  be  an  answer  to  the  very  diflBculty  raised  before 
as  to  the  use  of  salt  in  an  unusual  and  unfavourable  sense.  He  had 
said  that  ever}^  victim  to  the  wrath  of  God  would  be  salted  by  the 
fire  of  that  wrath,  i.  e.  preserved  in  existence  for  the  purpose  of  enduring 
it.  But  salt,  they  might  have  said,  as  some  say  now,  can  only  signify 
a  salutary  preservation,  as  in  the  sacrificial  law  referred  to,  it  denotes 
something  good,  not  evil.  With  his  usual  method  of  converting  objec- 
tions into  arguments  or  motives,  he  concedes  the  truth  of  the  premises 
involved  in  this  one.  Salt  is  good,  not  only  in  itself,  but  as  a  figure 
for  moral  purity  and  conservation  ;  that  is  the  true  salt,  which  every 
one  should  have  within  him,  namely,  moral  purity  and  right  affections. 
But  if  the  salt  Jjecomes  unsalted,  a  most  lively  and  intelligible  figure 
for  the  loss  of  moral  goodness  and  descriptive  of  men's  natural  condi- 
tion since  the  fall,  wherewith^  literally,  in  wliat^  i.  e.  in  the  use  of 
what  means  (see  above,  on  v.  29)  will  you  season  it,  a  Greek  word 
always  implying  management,  contrivance,  art,  and  in  the  later  classics 
used  as  a  culinary  term,  exactly  answering  to  season.  '  How  will  j^ou 
manage  or  contrive  to  restore  its  sapidity  or  saltness  ? '  It  is  implied 
that  such  a  process  is  impossible,  i.  e.  to  man  himself  or  any  other 
finite  power.  The  salt  of  moral  goodness  is  a  fine  thing  where  it  is 
possessed  ;  but  when  it  is  corrupted,  it  is  worse  than  useless,  and  the 
man  who  has  thus  lost  it  has  but  one  alternative.  He  must  either  be 
salted  with  the  fire  of  divine  wrath  and  his  own  eternal  torments,  or 
with  the  renewed  salt  of  divine  grace  and  his  own  regeneration.  Im- 
mortality, without  the  hope  of  blessedness,  which  gives  it  all  its  value, 
can  be  onh^  an  eternity  of  wretchedness.  Here  then  the  bright  or 
cheering  side  of  the  Avhole  subject  is  presented,  not  by  violent  transi- 
tion but  by  natural  association,  introducing  easily  the  following  exhor- 
tation. Ilave  salt  in  yourselves,  i.  e.  take  heed  that  the  principle  of 
conservation,  which  is  to  secure  your  endless  being,  is  not  that  of 
wrath  and  justice  and  punishment  ab  extra,  but  that  of  grace  and 
goodness  in  yourselves.  It  is  not  the  method  of  salvation  that  is  here 
presented,  but  the  bare  fact  that  in  order  to  secure  it  men  must  have 
a  principle  of  life  within  them,  and  the  scriptures  abundantly  teach 
elsewhere,  that  this  principle  can  only  be  implanted  by  divine  grace, 
through  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  By  a  perfectly  natural  but 
masterly  recoil,  he  then  reverts  in  conclusion  to  the  circumstance 
which  led  to  this  remarkable  discourse,  their  strife  for  the  pre-eminence, 
and  exhorts  them  to  demonstrate  their  possession  of  this  spiritual 
salt,  which  is  to  save  them  from  the  salt  of  everlasting  fire,  by  cher- 
ishing that  peace  among  themselves  (literally,  in  one  another)  which 
is  elsewhere  so  expressly  represented  as  among  the  invariable  "  fruits 
of  the  Spirit."     (Gal.  5, 22.  Eph.  5,  9.) 


MARK  10,  1.  271 


CHAPTEK  X. 

Mark  now  records,  in  chronological  order,  a  series  of  incidents  belong- 
ing to  a  journey  of  our  Saviour  in  Perea,  or  beyond  the  Jordan,  which 
we  have  reason,  drawn  from  other  sources,  to  regard  as  his  last  jour- 
ney to  Jerusalem.  In  reply  to  an  insidious  question  of  the  Pharisees, 
he  lays  down  the  Christian  law  of  marriage  and  divorce  (1-12.)  On 
the  same  or  a  subsequent  occasion,  he  declares  the  rights  of  children 
and  pronounces  a  blessing  on  them  (13-16.)  To  one  who  seeks  eternal 
life,  but  in  his  own  right,  Christ  applies  a  double  test,  thereby  expos- 
ing his  true  character  (17-22.)  This  leads  him  to  enlarge  upon  the 
dangers  incident  to  wealth,  and  the  obstructions  to  salvation  thence 
arising  (23-27.)  As  a  counterpart  to  this,  and  in  immediate  applica- 
tion to  his  first  disciples,  he  declares  the  recompense  of  those  renounc- 
ing all  for  his  sake  (28-31.)  Continuing  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  he 
again  foretells  his  betrayal  to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  his  maltreat- 
ment by  them,  ending  in  his  death  and  resurrection  (32-34.)  He  is 
still  so  far  from  being  understood,  that  James  and  John  request  con- 
spicuous positions  under  his  temporal  reign  which  they  believe  to  be 
approaching  (35-40.)  This  ambitious  prayer  excites  the  jealous  in- 
dignation of  the  rest,  which  he  allays  by  declaring  the  true  nature  of 
his  kingdom,  and  by  holding  up  to  them  his  own  example  (41-45.) 
In  the  last  stage  of  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  he  heals  a  blind  man 
with  accompanying  circumstances  of  a  novel  and  afiecting  kind,  on  ac- 
count of  which  it  is  recorded  in  detail  (46-52.)  Here  again  we  find 
the  narrative  not  only  flowing  and  coherent  but  progressive,  that  is, 
visibly  tending  to  the  crisis  or  catastrophe  of  this  whole  history,  and 
marked  by  regular  advances,  both  of  time  and  place. 

1.  And  he  arose  from  thence,  and  cometh  into  the 
coasts  of  Judea  by  the  farther  side  of  Jordan ;  and  the 
people  resort  unto  him  again  ;  and,  as  he  was  wont,  he 
taught  them  again. 

This  verse  is  descriptive,  not  of  an  ordinary  removal  from  one  place 
to  another  (as  in  9,  30),  but  of  our  Lord's  final  departure  from  Galilee 
to  close  his  ministry  and  life  in  Judea.  And  thence,  i.  e.  from  Caper- 
naum, the  last  place  mentioned  (see  above,  on  9,  33),  and  here  referred 
to  as  the  centre  of  his  Galilean  ministry,  now  about  to  terminate. 
Arising,  starting,  setting  out  (as  in  7,  24),  but  here  peculiarly  signifi- 
cant, because  denoting  the  commencement  of  his  last  official  journey. 
Coasts,  borders,  frontiers,  often  put  for  the  whole  territory  bounded 
by  them  (see  above,  on  5, 17.  7,  31.)  By  the  farther  side,  literally, 
through  the  Beijond-Jordcui,  that  phrase  having  acquired  the  force  of 
a  proper  name  equivalent  to  the  Ferea  of  the  Greek  geographers. 
The  natural  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that  he  travelled  to  Judea,  not 
directly  through  Samaria,  but  circuitously  through  Perea,  possibly  for 


272  MARK  10,  1.  2. 

greater  safely,  but  more  probably  because  that  region  had  been  hith- 
erto less  fiwoured  ^vith  his  presence  and  instructions.  It  may  even  be 
that  on  this  final  departure  from  his  accustomed  field  of  labour,  he 
deliberatelv  took  an  irreiiular  or  winding  course  on  both  sides  of  the 
river,  so  as  to  touch  as  many  points  as  possible.  (Conjpare  Lidvc  9, 
51,  the  precise  chronological  relations  of  which  passage  belong  to  the 
exposition  of  that  gospel.) 

2.  And  the  Pharisees  came  to  him,  and  asked  him,  Is 
it  h'lwful  for  a  man  to  pnt  away  (his)  Avife?  tempting  him. 

Mark  now  resumes  the  history  of  the  sj'stematic  opposition  of 
the  dominant  party,  not  by  mere  reiteration  of  facts  absolutely 
similar  to  tho^e  before  related,  but  by  exliibiting  a  new  phase  or 
asi-ect  of  the  anti-christian  movement.  The  tactics  of  the  enemy  had 
hitherto  consisted  in  objecting  to  his  conduct  or  to  that  of  his  disciples, 
with  respect  to  the  alleged  violations  of  the  law.  But  now,  instructed 
by  experience,  or  advised  by  wiser  leaders,  they  adopt  the  more  insidi- 
ous'method  of  demanding  his  opinion  upon  doubtful  and  vexed  ques- 
tions, which  were  then  the  subject  of  exciting  controversy,  and  which 
it  seemed  impossible  to  answer  either  way,  without  giving  offence  and 
incurring  danger  in  some  influential  quarter.  This  new  mode  of  oppo- 
sition was  continued  until  near  the  close  of  our  Lord's  history,  and 
affords  many  striking  illustrations  of  the  cunning  of  his  enemies  and 
of  his  own  consummate  wisdom.  The  first  of  these  attacks  was  on  the 
difficult  and  much  disputed  question  of  divorce.  The  Pharisees,  or 
according  to  the  latest  critics,  Pharisees^  without  the  article,  denoting 
members  of  that  wide-spread  party,  who  encountered  him  on  this  last 
journey  from  Galilee  and  east  of  Jordan.  Coming  to  Mm^  for  the 
purpose,  not  in  private  but  in  public,  as  he  taught  the  people  (v.  1.) 
Anked,  interrogated,  questioned  him.  Is  it  lairful,  literally,  (/'(or  ichether) 
it  is  lairful^  expressed  in  Greek  by  an  impersonal  verb,  the  root  or 
theme  of  (e^ouo-m)  the  noun  meaning  authority  or  delegated  power. 
The  verb  here  means,  permitted  by  divine  authority,  or  in  accordance 
with  the  law  of  Moses  (see  above,  on  2, 24.  2G.  3,  4.  G,  18.)  Ills  wife, 
literally,  a  icomcui,  corresponding  to  a  maiK  the  only  words  in  common 
use  for  wife  and  husband,  a  remarkable  and  perhaps  a  characteristic 
difference,  distinguishinix  the  Greek  and  French  from  the  Latin  and 
English  idiom.  The  specific  sense  is  here  determined  by  the  context. 
2o  put  aicrnj,  dismiss,  or  let  go,  a  verb  which  has  repeatedly  occurred 
before  in  other  applications  (sec  above,  on  G,  30.  45.  8,  3.  9.)  Ihnpt- 
ing,  i.  c.  tr3'ing  him,  putting  him  to  the  test.  According  to  the  Jewish 
traditions,  it  was  even  then  a  controverted  question,  between  the 
schools  of  Ilillel  and  Shammai,  whether  the  obscure  i)hrase  in  Dcut.  24, 
1,  translated  some  niicleanness^  but  literally  meaning  nal'edness  of 
word  (or  thing\  was  to  be  taken  in  a  moral  sense  as  signif\ing  lewd- 
ness, or  in  the  vague  sense  of  something  disagreeable.  The  latter 
doctrine  (that  of  Ilillel)  is  said  to  have  been  afterwards  carried  by  the 
famous  Rabbi  Akiba  so  far  as  to  allow  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  on 


xMARK  10,  2-5.  273 

finding  one  who  pleased  him  better.  The  question  here  proposed  to 
Jesus  was  a  trying  one,  because  an  affirmative  answer  might  subject 
him  to  the  charge  of  lax  morality,  and  a  negative  one  to  that  of  disre- 
spect for  the  authority  of  Moses. 

3.  And  lie  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Wliat  did 
Moses  command  jou  ? 

JJut  Tie  aiuicer'mg,  responding  promptly  to  their  cunning  and  malig- 
nant question ;  for  the  notion  that  they  merely  asked  for  information, 
or  from  curiosity  to  know  how  the  new  and  famous  teacher  would 
decide  such  points,  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  tenor  of  the  history, 
in  which  we  have  alrcad}'-  seen  the  traces  of  a  systematic  and  pro- 
gressive opposition,  one  of  the  marked  gradations  being  found  just 
here.  Instead  of  entering  into  their  vexed  questions  and  minute 
distinctions,  he  appeals  at  once  to  the  law  and  the  testimony^  and 
requires  them  to  recite  the  provision  made  by  Moses  for  such  cases, 
not  as  settling  the  difficulty,  but  as  presenting  the  true  status  quces- 
tionis^  which  was  not  what  the  Scribes  taught  or  the  Pharisees  prac- 
tised, but  what  Moses  meant  and  God  permitted. 

4.  And  they  said,  Moses  suffered  to  write  a  bill  of 
divorcement,  and  to  put  (her)  away. 

In  reply  to  this  question  they  correctly  state  the  substance  of  the 
law  still  extant  in  Deut.  24,  1-3.  Suffered,  a  verb  originally  meaning 
to  turn  over  vpon,  then  to  turn  over  to,  commit,  intrust,  and  lastly  to 
permit,  which  is  its  usual  sense  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament. 
A  Mil.  book,  or  writing,  of  whatever  size,  the  Greek  word  properly 
denoting  the  material  (the  inner  bark  of  the  papyrus),  as  the  corre- 
sponding Hebrew  one  (employed  by  Moses)  does  the  act  of  writing,  or 
the  fact  that  it  was  written  on.  The  meaning  here  is  evidently  that 
of  a  certificate  or  testimonial,  either  of  the  bare  fact  of  repudiation,  or 
of  her  having  been  repudiated  for  some  lesser  cause  than  conjugal 
infidelit}^  This  last  may  seem  at  variance  with  the  phrase  used  by 
Moses  and  alreadj-  mentioned  (see  above,  on  v.  3),  which  is  commonly 
understood  to  mean  unchaste  behaviour.  But  in  that  case  the  law 
inflicted  severe  punishment  (Num.  5.  31),  which  would  exclude  the 
peaceable  divorce  provided  for  in  Deuteronomy. 

5.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  For  the 
hardness  of  your  heart,  he  wrote  you  this  precept. 

Having  brought  them  back  from  their  own  subtle  reasonings  and 
nice  distinctions  to  the  letter  of  the  law.  he  now  interprets  it,  '•  as  one 
having  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes"  (1,  22.)  Of  this  interjire- 
tation  two  views  have  been  taken,  each  of  which  admits  of  being 
plausibly  defended.  The  first  is  that  Christ  here  represents  tliis  law 
12* 


274  MARK  10,  5-8. 

of  jNIoses  as  a  temporary  relaxation  of  the  original  divine  law  of 
marriage,  in  concession  to  the  obstinate  resistance  (or  liardheartedness) 
of  the  chosen  people.  This  is  perhaps  the  more  obvious  construction, 
as  it  seems  to  have  prevailed  so  commonly.  The  objection  to  it  is  the 
very  serious  one  that  it  represents  the  law  of  Moses  as  expressly  war- 
ranting Avhat  was  wrong  and  offensive  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  for  the 
very  reason  that  seems  to  call  for  stringent  prohibition.  (Compare  the 
words  of  Paul  in  1  Tim.  1,  9.)  This  difficulty  is  diminished,  if  not 
wholly  done  away,  by  explaining  TiardTieartedncss^  not  of  the  general 
opposition  of  the  people  to  the  will  of  God,  but  of  their  harslmess  and 
unkindness  to  their  wives  when  they  divorced  them,  either  as  actually 
practised  or  as  certainly  foreseen  at  the  giving  of  the  law  in  question, 
which  is  therefore  here  described  as  given,  not  for  but  to  (i.  e.  adapted 
to)  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  and  intended  to  restrain  or  mitigate 
its  bad  effects.  The  difference  between  the  two  interpretations  is  the 
difference  between  a  law  legitimating  such  divorces  as  the  Jews  had 
practised  from  the  earliest  times,  and  one  requiring  them  in  all  such 
cases  to  provide  the  repudiated  wife  with  a  certificate  of  character. 
Wrote,  in  the  literal  sense,  recorded,  which  implies  a  previous  enact- 
ment, or  in  the  secondary  sense,  j^'^'^scrihed,  enjoined,  denoting  the 
enactment  itself.  This  2>recept,  or  particular  command,  as  distinguished 
from  the  law  or  aggregate  of  all  such  precepts. 

6.  But  from  the  beginning  of  tlie  creation,  God  made 
tliem  male  and  female. 

According  to  the  first  view  above  given  of  our  Saviour's  meaning 
(in  V.  5).  this  verse  distinguishes  the  primary  or  original  law  of  mar- 
riage from  its  modification  in  the  law  of  JNIoses.  According  to  the  other, 
it  simpl}'  states  the  law  of  marriage  as  it  was  from  the  beginning  and 
still  remained  unmodified  and  unrepealed.  From  the  'beginning  of  the 
creation,  not  in  reference  to  the  order  of  the  creation  itself,  for  that  of 
man  was  last  not  first,  but  in  reference  to  every  thing  of  later  date, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  (world,  i.  e.  its)  creation.  Or  the  same 
sense  may  be  gained  by  limiting  creation  to  the  origin  of  man  himself, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  human  race,  or  when  man  was  created. 
God  made  them  male  and  female,  i.  e.  he  created  one  pair,  and  united 
them  in  marriage,  thereby  excluding  all  polygamy,  and  at  the  same 
time  giving  this  relation  the  precedence  over  every  other,  not  except- 
ing the  parental  and  filial,  as  expressly  stated  in  the  next  verse. 

1.  8.  For  tliis  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and 
mother,  and  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  thej  twain  shall  be 
one  ilesh  ;  so  then  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one  flesh. 

These  are  the  words  of  Adam  as  recorded  in  Gen.  2,  24,  and  are 
therefore  not  a  precept  but  a  prophecy  or  a  statement  of  what  would 
be  the  natural  and  necessary  consequence  of  marriage,  namely,  that  it 


MARK  10,  8-12.  275 

would  of  course  supersede  the  filial  and  all  other  previous  relations.  For 
this  cause,  not  because  God  made  them  male  and  female,  but  referring 
to  the  context  in  Genesis,  because  Eve  was  taken  out  of  Adam  and 
was  bone  of  his  bone  and  flesh  of  his  flesh,  therefore  (or  for  this  cause) 
shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  not  as  a  necessar}^  duty  in  all 
cases  even  of  marriage,  but  as  the  natural  and  usual  result,  and  shall 
cleave  unto  his  wife,  or  be  incorporated  and  identified  with  her,  so 
that  they  are  no  more  two  lut  one  flesh,  not  united  merely  in  aficction 
or  in  spirit,  but  in  body  or  in  the  whole  person. 

9.  "What  therefore  God  liatli  joined  together,  let  not 
man  put  asunder. 

Thus  far  our  Lord  might  seem  to  have  been  arguing  against  poly- 
gamy and  not  divorce  ;  but  he  now  makes  such  an  application  of  his 
previous  statements  as  completely  meets  the  present  case  by  declaring 
it  unlawful  for  man  to  separate  (or  violently  sever)  that  which  God 
himself  has  joined  together.  In  other  words,  marriage  being  not  a 
human  but  a  divine  institution,  and  coeval  with  the  race  itself,  cannot 
be  nullified  or  even  modified  by  any  authority  inferior  to  that  which 
first  created  it. 

10.  And  in  the  house  his  disciples  asked  liim  again  of 
the  same  (matter). 

In  the  house,  or  according  to  the  latest  text,  into  the  house,  a  preg- 
nant or  elliptical  construction,  more  distinctly  suggestive  of  their 
previous  entrance  than  the  common  reading.  Again  has  reference  to 
the  previous  question  of  the  Pharisees  (in  v.  2.)  The  same  (thing  or 
matter),  i.  e.  the  lawfulness  of  divorce.  This  renewal  of  the  question  by 
his  own  disciples  shows  how  much  they  were  surprised  by  his  absolute 
unqualified  denunciation  of  a  practice  so  familiar  and  so  confidently 
founded  on  the  law  of  Moses. 

11.  12.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Whosoever  shall  put 
away  his  wife,  and  marry  another,  committeth  adul- 
tery against  her ;  and  if  a  woman  shall  put  away  her 
husband,  and  be  married  to  anotlier,  she  committeth  adul- 
tery. 

He  says  to  tliem,  his  disciples,  what  he  had  said  before  to  his 
opponents,  but  in  terms  still  stronger  because  more  explicit  and  direct. 
They  are  indeed  so  clear  as  neither  to  require  nor  admit  of  explana- 
tion. They  are  also  carefully  repeated  in  relation  to  both  sexes, 
though  the  Jewish  law  and  usage  recognized  no  right  of  divorce 
except  upon  the  husband's  side.  Put  away,  therefore,  in  v.  12  must 
either  be  explained  to  mean  desertion  by  the  wife  (compare  1  Cor.  7, 
12.  13),  which  only  differs  from  divorce  in  the  absence  of  the  legal 


276  MARK  10,  12.  13.  14 


fbrm,  or  understood  as  a  prospective  re<2:nLition,  not  confined,  in  form 
or  substance,  to  the  Jewish  practice.  Tliis  absolute  prohibition  of 
divorce  is  still  maintained  in  tlie  Church  of  Rome,  while  the  Protes- 
tant and  Oriental  churches  qualify  it  by  the  exceptions  recorded  in 
Matt.  19,  9.  1  Cor.  7, 15,  which  some  consider  as  involved  in  Mark's 
account,  because  the  violation  of  the  marriage  vow  by  either  party  is 
itself  a  dissolution  of  the  marriage  relation,  which  ought  not  to  be 
regarded  as  still  binding  on  the  other.  Even  in  Matthew,  the  case  of 
fornication  or  adultery  is  mentioned  rather  as  a  matter  of  course, 
which  eyerj  one  would  take  for  granted,  than  as  a  formal  exception 
needing  to  be  separately  stated. 

13.  And  they  brought  joiiiig  children  to  him,  that  he 
should  touch  them  ;  and  (his)  disciples  rebuked  those  that 
brought  (them.) 

T/iei/,  indefinitely,  some  persons  otherwise  unknown,  or  more  spe- 
cifically, the  parents  or  friends  of  the  children  (see  above,  on  8,  22). 
Young  is  not  expressed  in  the  original,  unless  it  be  by  the  diminutive 
form  of  the  noun  (TratSi'a).  which  however  is  elsewhere  rendered  simply 
children  (e.g.  7,  28.  9,  27.)  The  translation  ma}^  have  reference  to  the 
stronger  term  0pecf)r])  emploj^ed  by  Luke  (18, 15),  and  correctly  ren- 
dered infants.  The  imposition  of  hands,  a  natural  sign  of  transfer,  and 
often  used  in  miraculous  healings  to  connect  the  source  and  object  of 
the  gift,  is  here  emplo3^ed  to  express  the  general  idea  of  blessing.  There 
is  no  need  of  supposing  any  superstitious  notion  of  a  magical  efficacy 
in  the  touch,  although  such  errors  may  have  been  indulged  by  some. 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  greater  number,  in  making  this  re- 
quest, had  reference  to  the  use  of  the  same  form  in  sacrifice  and  bene- 
diction from  the  patriarchal  times  (Gen.  48, 14.  Lev.  1,  4.  16,  21.)  JRe- 
ljuTccd  those  bringing  tliem^  an  explanation  of  the  more  ambiguous  terms 
employed  by  Matthew  (19, 13)  and  Luke  (18,  15),  which  might  seem 
to  mean  that  they  rebuked  the  children  themselves.  This  prohibition 
need  not  be  ascribed  to  envy  or  moroseness  on  the  part  of  the  disciples, 
but  was  rather  owing  to  a  mistaken  though  sincere  regard  for  their 
master's  honour  or  convenience,  and  an  officious  sense  of  their  own  im- 
portance as  his  friends  and  followers. 

14.  But  when  Jesus  saw  (it),  he  w^as  much  displeased, 
and  said  unto  them,  Suiter  the  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

But  Jesus  seeing  it  icas  much  disj^leosed,  a  verb  which,  according  to 
its  etymology,  as  commonly  explained,  denotes  great  pain  of  mind  or 
body,  but  especially  the  former,  and  may  here  be  considered  as  includ- 
ing the  ideas  of  grief  and  indignation  (see  below,  on  14,  4,  and  compare 
Matt.  20  24.  20,  8.  Luke  13, 14.)     To  them,  the  disciples,  who  had  un- 


MARK   10,  14.  15.  16.  277 

dertaken  to  exclude  the  children.  Siiffc7\  permit,  strictly,  let  alone 
(see  above,  on  1,  34.  5, 10.  37.  7, 12.  27.)  Little  children^  the  same 
word  that  is  rendered  young  cTiildrcn  in  the  verse  preceding.  Forbid^ 
by  word  or  act,  the  Greek  verb  meaning  to  deter,  hinder,  or  prevent  in 
any  way.  Of  such  maj''  either  mean  of  children,  or  of  those  resembling 
children.  Some,  adhering  to  the  strict  sense  of  this  word,  and  under- 
standing the  phrase  Tcingdom  of  God  as  denoting  heaven  or  a  state  of 
future  blessedness,  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the  most  of 
those  who  shall  be  saved  are  children,  because  the  greater  portion  of 
the  human  race  dies  in  inftmcy.  and  all  such  are  redeemed.  But  this 
sense  is  far  from  being  either  obvious  or  relevant  in  this  connection, 
where  the  reference  seems,  not  so  much  to  numbers  as  to  character. 
Accordingly  some  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the  kingdom 
of  God,  or  the  enjoyment  of  his  favour,  here  and  hereafter,  belongs  to 
children  (who  believe)  no  less  than  to  adult  believers  (see  above,  on  9, 
42.)  A  third  interpretation  explains  such  as  meaning  sucli-like^  those 
resembling  them  in  character,  i.  e.  in  freedom  from  those  sins  of  which 
children,  though  depraved  by  nature,  are  incapable  from  inexperience 
or  from  undeveloped  intellect  and  passion,  which  the  same  interpreters 
suppose  to  be  the  meaning  of  our  Lord  in  Matt.  18,  3.  4  (see  above,  on 
9,  36.  42.)  More  satisfactory  than  any  one  of  these  hypotheses,  because 
combining  what  is  true  in  all  of  them,  is  Calvin's  explanation  of  the 
Bentcnce  as  referring  both  to  children  (i.  e.  to  believing  children)  and  to 
those  who  are  like  them  in  their  childlike  qualities,  or  as  Paul  expresses 
it,  children  not  in  understanding  but  in  malice  (1  Cor.  14,  20.) 

15.  Yerily  I  say  nnto  yon,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter 
therein. 

This  appears  to  have  been  one  of  our  Lord's  gnomes  or  maxims 
which  he  threw  out  upon  different  occasions,  and  which  are  therefore 
found  in  different  connections  in  the  history.  This  aphoristic  character 
is  indicated  partly  by  the  Amen  (or  Verily)  I  say  to  you^  prefixed  to 
it.  Shall  not  (may  nigt.  does  not)  receive  (i.  e.  accept,  consent  to  enter 
or  belong  to)  the  kingdom  of  God.  or  the  relation  of  subjects  to  God  in 
Christ  as  their  immediate  sovereign,  as  a  child,  i.  e.  with  the  simplicity 
and  docility  natural  to  children,  and  with  childlike  freedom  from  am- 
bition, avarice,  and  other  sins  peculiar  to  mature  age.  Shall  (may  or 
can)  not  enter  into  it  (the  kingdom  before  mentioned),  and  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence,  or  rather  an  equivalent  expression,  cannot  be  saved. 

16.  And  ]ie  took  them  np  in  his  arms,  put  (Iiis)  hands 
upon  them,  and  blessed  them. 

Arid  embracing  them,  or  folding  them  in  his  arms,  the  same  affec- 
tionate gesture  that  is  mentioned  in  9,  36,  and  denoted  by  the  same 
Greek  word,  though  otherwise  expressed  in  English.  Putting  the 
fiands  upon  thern^  thereby  showing  that  the  request  for  him  to  do  so 


278  MARK  10,  16.  17.  18. 

was  not  superstitions  or  absurd  (sec  above,  on  v.  13.)  Blessed  t7iem,m 
the  twofold  sense  of  praying  for  them  as  a  man,  and  of  answering  his 
own  prayers  as  a  divine  person  (see  above,  on  6,  41.  8,  7.)  The  appli- 
cation of  this  passage  to  infant-baptism,  although  scornfully  rejected  as 
absurd  by  its  opponents,  is  entirely  legitimate,  not  as  an  argument,  but 
as  an  illustration  of  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  system  with  respect  to 
children.  Every  reader  must  determine  for  himself  whether  those  who 
sneer  at  "  baby-sprinkling,"  and  repudiate  as  folly  the  bare  thought  of 
a  child's  partaking  of  that  sacrament,  are  more  like  the  disciples  who 
rebuked  the  children  or  their  friends  on  this  occasion,  or  like  him  who 
said,  Fordid  the?7i  not ! 

17.  And  wlieii  lie  was  gone  forth  into  tlie  way,  tliere 
came  one  running,  and  kneeled  to  him,  and  asked  him, 
Good  Master,  what  shall  1  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal 
life  ? 

And  Tie  travelling  forth  into  tJie  icay^  i.  e.  setting  out  afresh  upon 
his  journey,  showing  that  this  is  a  connected  narrative,  and  not  a  series 
of  detached  incidents  thrown  together  at  random,  or  because  of  their 
mutual  affinity,  without  regard  to  chronological  order.  Bimning  up 
or  to  (Jiwi)^  as  a  sign  of  eagerness  and  haste.  One,  not  the  indefinite 
pronoun  (jls)  sometimes  so  translated,  but  the  numeral  adjective  (eij) 
properly  so  rendered,  and  here  used  emphatically  to  denote  a  single 
person,  not  forming  part  of  the  surrounding  multitude,  perhaps  with 
some  allusion  to  his  rank,  which  was  that  of  a  ruler  (Luke  18,  18.) 
Kneeling^  as  a  token  of  profound  respect  and  earnest  supplication, 
probably  sincere,  as  he  is  not  accused  of  tempting  Christ  like  the  Phari- 
sees (in  V.  2),  and  what  follows  shows  him  to  have  been  an  honest 
though  erroneous  and  self-righteous  seeker  after  truth  and  life.  Good 
master  (i.  e.  teacher),  ichat  shall  I  do  f  the  question  afterwards  pro- 
pounded by  those  who  were  converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts 
2,  31),  but  here  materially  qualified  by  what  is  added.  That  I  may 
inherit,  i.  e.  possess  in  my  own  right,  eternal  life,  salvation,  everlasting 
happiness. 

18.  And  Jesus  said  nnto  hhn,  Why  callest  thou  me 

good  ?  (tliere  is)  none  good  but  one,  (that  is)  God. 

The  translators  have  here  happily  dispensed  with  their  favourite 
expression,  no  man  (see  above,  on  9,  35.  39),  and  thereby  avoided  a 
gross  solecism,  no  man  except  God.  The  Greek  word  exactly  corre- 
sponds to  no  one,  being  compounded  of  the  negative  particle  (ov)  and 
the  numeral  (et?),  which  occurs  in  the  preceding  verse  and  in  the  last 
clause  of  this.  But  a  very  important  question  here  arises  in  rela- 
tion to  the  meaning  of  our  Saviour's  language.  The  question  (jichy 
callest  thou  one  good?)  implies  reproof,  and  by  itself  might  seem  to 
be  a  mere  correction  of  the  light  and  thoughtless  way  in  which  such 


MARK   10,  18.  19.  279 

titles  of  respect  are  given.  But  this  construction  is  precluded  by  the 
other  clause,  which  would  in  that  case  be  entirely  irrelevant  if  not  un- 
meaning. Some  of  the  fathers,  followed  hy  many  modern  interpreters, 
explain  it  as  an  intimation  of  our  Lord's  divinity.  Why  call  me  good, 
unless  you  own  me  to  be  God,  for  none  is  good  but  God  ?  But  this 
would  be  not  onlj^  an  obscure  and  indirect  mode  of  announcing  that 
great  truth,  but  quite  irrelevant  and  unconnected  with  the  previous 
context.  It  would  also  imply  what  is  not  true,  to  wit,  that  the  epithet 
good,  though  absolutely  applicable  only  to  the  ]Most  High,  may  not,  in 
a  lower  sense,  be  lawfully  applied  to  others  (as  it  is  in  Matt.  12.  35. 
25,  21.  Luke  23,  50.  Acts^ll,  24.  Rom.  5,  7.)  The  only  way  in  which 
these  objections  can  be  met  is  by  supposing  an  allusion  in  the  word 
(/ood.  twice  employed  by  Christ  himself,  to  the  same  word  twice  occur- 
ring in  the  ruler's  question,  as  preserved  by  Matthew  (19, 10),  Good 
onaster,  icliat  good  shall  I  do  ?  The  meaning  of  the  answer  then  may 
be  as  follows :  '  You  ask  what  good  j'ou  are  to  do,  and  come  to  me  as 
a  teacher  of  good,  able  to  inform  you ;  but  on  that  ground,  why  not  go 
to  God  at  once  ?  He  alone  is  absolutely  good,  and  his  will  is  the  rule 
of  good  to  all  his  creatures ;  and  that  will  is  expressed  in  his  com- 
mandments,' which  he  then  refers  to  more  expressly  in  the  next  verse. 
The  goodness  of  our  Lord  himself,  and  his  divinity,  are  then  not  at 
all  in  question,  and  are  consequently  neither  affirmed  nor  denied. 

19.  Thou  knowest  the  commandments,  Do  not  commit 
adultery,  Do  not  kill,  Do  not  steal,  Do  not  bear  false  wit- 
ness. Defraud  not,  Honour  thy  father  and  mother. 

TJie  commandments  tliou  hnoicest,  i.  e.  the  written  precepts  which 
make  up  the  law  as  the  revealed  will  of  God.  This  is  a  direct  continua- 
tion of  the  answer  in  the  other  verse,  and  is  equivalent  to  saying, '  Why 
come  to  me  as  a  teacher  or  revealer  of  good,  to  ask  what  you  are  to  do, 
when  God's  commandments  are  already  upon  record  for  the  very  purpose  V 
He  then  recites,  not  all  the  ten  commandments,  but  those  belonging  to 
the  second  table  and  prescribing  the  duty  of  man  to  man.  Those  of 
the  first  table,  or  the  duties  of  man  to  God,  are  omitted,  not,  as  some 
suppose,  because  included  in  the  declaration  that  God  alone  is  good, 
but  because  they  would  not  furnish  so  decisive  a  test  for  self-examina- 
tion, since  a  man  may  imagine  that  he  fears  and  loves  God,  but  he  can- 
not imagine  that  he  loves  his  neighbour  if  he  robs  or  murders  him,  or 
bears  false  witness  against  him.  The  order  of  the  decalogue  is  disre- 
garded  either  by  Christ  himself  or  the  evangelist,  as  unimportant  to 
his  present  purpose,  the  seventh  commandment  standing  first,  then  the 
sixth,  then  the  eighth,  ninth,  and  tenth,  and  last  of  all  the  fifth,  because, 
as  some  suppose,  the  ruler  was  deficient  in  this  duty,  but  more  prob- 
ably, as  others  think,  because  it  is  a  positive  commandment  and  the 
others  are  all  negative.  Defraud  not  (or  deprive  not^  is  by  some  re- 
garded as  a  separate  citation  from  Lev.  19, 13,  but  is  far  more  probably 
a  summary  abbreviation  of  the  tenth  commandment,  which  alone  is 


280  MARK  10,  20.  21. 


wanting  to  complete  the  second  table,  and  is  here  iramediatclj  preceded 
by  the  eighth  and  ninth. 

20.  And  lie  answered  and  said  unto  liim,  Master,  all 
tliese  have  I  observed  from  my  youth. 

This  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  hypocritical  profession,  but  an  honest 
expression  of  the  man's  belief  that  he  had  actnally  kept  the  law,  and 
wanted  something  more  to  do  in  order  to  inherit  (or  secure  a  rightful 
claim  to)  everlasting  life  or  blessedness.  This  does  not  argue  any  dis- 
position to  deceive,  but  only  an  extremely  superficial  and  inadequate 
conception  of  the  meaning  and  extent  of  the  divine  law,  as  requiring 
perfect  and  perpetual  obedience,  and  extending  to  the  thoughts,  dispo- 
sitions, and  affections,  no  less  than  the  outward  actions.  Ohserred, 
literally,  watched  or  guarded,  which  is  the  primary  maning  of  our 
English  verb  to  kee2),  applied  in  the  same  manner.  From  my  yonth^  a 
relative  expression  which,  like  that  in  9,  21,  proves  nothing  as  to  the 
precise  age  of  the  ruler,  who  is  called  a  young  man  or  a  youth  by 
Matthew  (19,  22.) 

21.  Then  Jesus  beholding  him  loved  him,  and  said 
unto  him,  One  thing  thou  lackest ;  go  thy  way,  sell  what- 
soever thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven  ;  and  come,  take  up  the  cross, 
and  follow  me. 

Then^  literally,  and  or  Ijut  (Se),  deJioMing,  looking  at  or  on  him. 
It  has  been  much  disputed  what  could  be  the  object  of  the  Saviour's 
love  to  this  self-righteous  ruler.  Some  say  his  sincerity  and  earnest 
wish  to  know  his  duty ;  some  his  real  rectitude  and  innocence  of  life, 
without  which  he  could  not  have  been  so  flir  deceived.  Most  probably, 
however,  love,  as  in  man}'-  other  places,  here  denotes  not  moral  appro- 
bation, nor  affection  founded  upon  any  thing  belonging  to  the  object, 
but  a  sovereign  and  gratuitous  compassion,  such  as  leads  to  every  act 
of  mercy  upon  God's  part  (compare  John  3,  16.  Gal.  2.  20.  Eph.  2,  4. 
1  John  4, 10. 19.)  The  sense  will  then  be,  not  that  Jesus  loved  him 
on  account  of  what  he  said,  or  what  he  was,  or  what  he  did,  but  that 
having  purposes  of  mercy  towards  him,  he  proceeded  to  unmask  him  to 
himself,  and  to  show  him  how  entirely  groundless  although  probably 
sincere,  was  his  claim  to  have  habitually  kept  the  law.  The  Saviour's 
love  is  then  mentioned,  not  as  the  effect  of  what  precedes,  but  as  the 
ground  or  motive  of  what  follows.  One  thing  thou  lacl'est,  literally, 
one  thing  is  hehindhand  (wanting  or  deficient)  to  thee.  AVliat  this  one 
thing  is,  he  then  informs  him  by  the  exhortation  or  command  that 
follows.  Go  thy  way  (in  modern  English  go  away),  i.  e.  at  once,  and 
do  what  I  shall  now  enjoin  upon  thee.  Thou  shalt  have  treasure  iti 
hea/cen  may  seem  out  of  place  in  this  practical  direction  and  severe  re- 
quisition ;  but  it  is  equivalent  to  saying,  sell  and  distribute  what  thou 


MARK  10,  21.  281 

hast,  expecting  no  return  or  compensation  in  the  present  life,  but  only 
in  tlie  future ;  so  that  instead  of  lessening  it  exaggerates  the  rigour  of 
the  requisition.  Come^  literall}'-,  liifher  (see  above,  on  4,  Vi')^  follow  mo 
(become  my  follower  or  personal  attendant),  tahing  nj)  the  cross  (of 
suffering  and  self-denial.)  This  has  been  misunderstood  by  thousands 
and  for  ages,  as  a  general  command  to  Christians,  or  an  evangelical  ad- 
vice to  such  as  wish  to  gain  a  supererogatory  merit  by  doing  more 
than  the  law  requires,  directing  them  to  give  up  their  possessions  as 
the  one  thing  necessary  to  perfection.  This  is  the  foundation  of  the 
vow  of  poverty  common  to  almost  all  monastic  institutions,  and  of  the 
disposition  to  regard  wealth  as  sinful  which  is  sometimes  found  in 
other  quarters.  This  opinion,  plausible  as  it  may  seem,  and  efficacious 
as  it  has  been,  really  involves  three  fallacies,  each  fatal  to  its  truth.  The 
first  is,  that  our  Lord  admits  the  fact  that  this  man  had  done  all  that 
Avas  commanded,  and  proceeds  to  tell  him  one  thing  more  required  to 
make  him  perfect ;  the  second,  that  this  one  thing  was  the  mere  re- 
nunciation of  his  property ;  the  third,  that  the  requisition  to  renounce 
it  was  a  universal  one  intended  for  all  wishing  to  inherit  everlasting 
life.  The  sacrifice  required  was  not  the  one  thing  lacking,  but  the 
proof  of  it.  The  one  thing  lacking  was  not  something  to  be  superadded 
to  the  keeping  of  the  law,  but  something  the  defect  of  which  showed 
that  he  had  not  kept  the  law  at  all.  It  was  willingness  to  give  up  all 
for  God,  when  its  possession  became  inconsistent  with  his  service. 
Without  this,  the  observance  of  the  law  was  worthless,  or  rather  it 
had  no  existence.  The  reserve  or  deficiency  in  this  case  had  respect 
to  the  advantages  of  wealth,  which  tliis  man  perhaps  honestly  expected 
to  combine,  not  only  with  the  keeping  of  the  law,  but  with  the  per- 
formance of  some  extra-meritorious  act  which  would  secure  to  him  the 
heritage  or  portion  of  eternal  life.  Instead  of  naming  any  such  condi- 
tion, Christ  requires  him  to  abandon  what  he  knew  to  be  his  idol,  and 
the  man  at  once  perceives  the  deficiency  of  his  obedience.  Had  his 
ruling  passion  been  the  love  of  pleasure  or  of  power,  a  corresponding 
test  w^ould  have  been  chosen.  Multitudes  would  give  up  wealtii,  if  suf- 
fered to  retain  some  other  object  of  supreme  afiection.  ^Jultitudes 
have  actually  done  so,  by  monastic  vows  or  otherwise,  whose  hearts 
were  still  enslaved  by  some  other  selfish  unsubdued  afiection.  In  op- 
position to  the  errors  which  have  now  been  mentioned,  three  points 
may  be  stated :  1.  Our  Lord,  far  from  conceding  this  man's  claim  to 
have  kept  the  law  all  his  life,  here  shows  him  that  his  boasted  obe- 
dience had  been  destitute  of  something  which  w^as  absolutely  necessary, 
not  to  its  perfection  merely,  but  to  its  having  any  worth  at  all.  2.  In- 
stead of  stating  this  deficiency  in  general  terms,  as  the  want  of  that 
supreme  devotion  and  entire  submission  to  the  will  of  God  which  will 
dispose  men  to  abandon  an}'-  thing  for  his  sake,  he  simply  and  at  once  re- 
quires him  to  abandon  what  he  knew  to  be  his  idol,  thus  convincing 
him,  not  merely  of  a  theoretical  or  doctrinal  proposition,  but  of  iiis  own 
practical  deficiency  and  de;^titutiun  of  the  one  thing  needful  to  a  full 
and  meritorious  obedience.  3.  This  requisition  was  a  personal  test, 
and  not  a  general  rule  of  duty,  being  applicable  only  where  the  object 


282  MARK  10,  21.  22. 

of  idolatrous  attachment  is  the  same,  but  taking  other  forms  in  refer- 
ence to  other  objects.  Here  again  we  have  a  fine  example  of  our  Sav- 
iour's paradoxical  method  of  instruction,  by  presenting  extreme  cases 
and  determining  by  what  men  are  prepared  to  do  in  such  cases,  though 
they  may  never  occur  in  actual  experience,  what  they  will  do  in  others 
of  a  more  ordinary  and  familiar  nature.  This  effect  would  be  destroyed 
by  converting  the  extreme  case  into  a  constant  universal  rule,  which 
is  just  as  unreasonable  as  it  would  be  to  convert  the  proposition,  that 
every  true  believer  must  be  ready  to  endure  the  pains  of  martj'rdom 
rather  than  deny  Christ,  into  a  specific  precept  that  every  Christian 
must  become  a  martyr,  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  salvation,  or 
that  by  so  doing  any  Christian  may  attain  a  supererogatory  merit, 
even  above  that  of  obeying  the  divine  law.  It  is  one  of  the  most  strik- 
ing facts  in  the  history  of  the  church,  that  this  delusion  as  to  martyr- 
dom did  really  prevail  in  the  age  of  persecution,  and  was  followed  by 
the  other,  as  to  voluntary  poverty,  in  what  may  be  described  as  the 
age  of  wealth  and  luxury. 


And  lie  was  sad  at  that  saying,  and  went  away 
grieved  ;  for  he  had  great  possessions. 

Whether  the  ruler  fully  understood  the  reasoning  involved  in  our 
Lord's  reply  or  not,  he  seems  at  least  to  have  felt  its  application  to 
himself,  i.  e.  he  felt  that  he  could  not  do  what  Christ  required,  and 
could  not  therefore  maintain  his  boast  of  perfect  submission  to  the  will 
of  God.  For  though  he  may  not  have  admitted  the  right  of  this  ''good 
teacher  "  to  exact  of  him  so  terrible  a  sacrifice,  he  must  have  felt  that 
even  if  he  had  the  right,  his  own  heart  was  incapable  of  such  obedience. 
So  completely  was  he  silenced  by  this  consciousness,  and  by  the  fear- 
ful probing  which  produced  it.  that  he  seems  to  have  withdrawn  with- 
out attempting  any  self-defence  or  refutation  of  the  Saviour's  doctrine. 
And  he,  deing  (or  becoming)  sad,  an  expressive  Greek  term  elsewhere 
applied  to  the  gloomy  aspect  of  a  lowering  day  (Matt.  16,  3.)  At  (or 
Jbr,  on  account  of)  the  tcord  (or  saying^,  i.  e.  what  the  Saviour  had 
just  said  in  answer  to  his  own  demand,  and  which  he  therefore  could 
not  decently  complain  of,  though  unable  to  receive  it.  He  went  away 
grie'ced,  because  his  proud  (though  earnest  and  siucere)  hope  of  inherit- 
ing eternal  life  was  crushed  by  this  most  unexpected  and  impossible 
condition, ybr  lie  had,  literally  teas  having,,  an  expression  foreign  from 
our  idiom  but  suggesting  the  idea  of  continued  or  habitual  as  well  as 
actual  possession.  Though  a  young  man  (Matt.  19,  22),  he  was  not  a 
mere  expectant  but  had  come  into  possession  of  his  property,  which 
may  perhaps  throw  light  upon  the  form  of  his  inquiry,  how  he  could 
inherit  everlasting  life.  Many  possessions,  may  simply  mean  much 
property,  or  more  specifically  various  kinds  of  wealth.  Upon  the  fur- 
ther history  and  final  destiny  of  this  young  man  the  Scriptures,  as  in 
many  other  cases,  drop  the  veil,  and  the  question  of  his  fate  is  left  to 
the  conjectures  of  interpreters,  which  vary  with  their  tempers,  or  per- 
haps from  accidental  causes.     Calvin  thinks  it  more  probable  that  ho 


MARK  10,  22.  23.  24.  283 

continued  as  he  was.  The  modern  Germans  lean  the  other  way,  as 
some  of  them  have  hopes,  not  only  for  Simon  Magus,  but  for  Judas 
Iscariot.  The  mere  silence  of  the  history  proves  nothing,  as  the  Bible 
contains  few  biographical  details  that  have  not  a  historical  or  public 
interest.  Even  the  patriarchs  withdraw  from  view  as  soon  as  they 
cease  to  be  actors  in  the  scene,  though  long  before  the  end  of  life.  As 
Adam  and  Eve.  the  guilty  source  of  our  apostasy,  are  almost  universallj'' 
believed  to  have  been  saved,  notwithstanding  the  silence  of  the  sacred 
record,  so  the  same  presumption  may  be  warrantably  raised  in  other 
less  conspicuous  and  noted  cases.  In  the  one  before  us,  there  is  a 
positive  though  slight  hint  of  a  favourable  issue,  in  the  statement  made 
by  Mark  alone,  that  Jesus  loved  him,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  most 
probablj''  denotes  that  he  had  purposes  of  mercy  towards  him,  and  in 
this  conclusion  it  is  pleasing,  since  it  is  allowable,  to  rest. 

23.  And  Jesus  looked  round  about,  and  saith  unto  liis 
disciples,  How  hardly  sliall  they  that  have  riches  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God ! 

Looking  rounds  a  gesture  elsewhere  noted  in  this  gospel  (see  above, 
on  3,  5.  34.  5,  32),  here  designed  to  call  attention  to  the  painful  but 
salutary  lesson  taught  by  the  example  of  the  man  who  had  just  left 
them.  How  hardly^  with  what  diflBculty,  i.  e.  in  the  face  of  what  ob- 
structions and  impediments.  The  phrase  has  reference,  not  to  the 
sufficiency  of  God's  grace,  which  is  equal  in  all  cases  because  infinite, 
but  to  the  hinderauces  with  which  the  man  himself  must  struggle,  and 
which  nothing  but  that  grace  can  overcome.  Those  having  riches,  a 
Greek  noun  originally  meaning  what  is  used  or  needed,  but  commonly 
employed  in  the  plural  (Acts  4,  37  is  an  exception)  to  denote  property, 
and  particularly  money.  (Compare  funds  and  means  in  modern  Eng- 
lish.) This  usage  gives  our  Lord's  words  a  wider  application  than  if 
limited  to  those  possessing  wealth  or  riches,  although  these  are  no 
doubt  especially  intended,  as  peculiarly  in  danger.  Into  the  hingdom 
of  God  shall  enter,  i.  e.  become  his  faithful  subjects  here,  and  enjoy* 
his  royal  favour  hereafter,  all  which  is  summed  up  in  the  usual  expres- 
sion, '  shall  be  saved.' 

24.  And  the  disciples  were  astonished  at  his  words. 
But  Jesus  answereth  again,  and  saith  unto  them.  Children, 
how  hard  is  it  for  them  that  trust  in  riches  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  ! 

Astonished,  filled  with  consternation  and  amazement.  But  Jesus 
again  answering,  not  merely  saying,  which  is  never  the  full  meaning 
of  this  verb,  but  either  continuing,  resuming,  saying  further,  or  more 
strictly  still,  responding  to  their  thoughts  though  not  expressed  in 
words.  Children,  an  affectionate  expression  indicating  an  intention  to 
relieve  and  comfort  rather  than  alarm  them.    How  hard,  the  adjective 


284  MARK  10,  21  25.  26. 

from  which  the  adverb  in  v.  23  is  formed  and  corre5;ponding  to  it  also 
in  its  sense  as  there  explained.  Those  trusting  in  (rel3'infr  on)  2)os>ies- 
sions,  the  word  used  in  the  preceding  verse  and  there  explained.  This 
second  exclamation,  which  has  been  preserved  by  !Mark  alone,  was  evi- 
dently given  to  explain  and  qualify  the  one  before  it,  by  informing 
them  that  not  the  mere  possession  of  the  good  things  of  this  life,  but 
overweening  confidence  in  them,  as  sources  or  securities  of  happiness, 
would  hinder  men's  salvation  ;  yet  implying  that  as  this  false  reliance 
is  almost  inseparable  from  the  possession,  the  latter,  although  not 
necessarily,  is  almost  invariably  attended  by  the  greatest  moral  and 
spiritual  danger. 

25.  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  tlie  eye  of  a 

needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 

God. 

That  the  qualifying  comment  in  v.  24  was  not  intended  to  retract 
or  cancel  the  original  assertion  in  v.  23,  but  merely  to  explain  it,  or  to 
state  the  principle  which  it  involves,  is  now  shown  by  its  rcpotition  in 
a  still  more  emphatic  and  it  might  appear  exaggerated  form,  if  it  were 
not  so  clearly  a  proverbial  one.  It  is  easier^  more  practicable,  less 
laborious,  the  idea  suggested  by  the  derivation  of  the  Greek  word  being 
i\i^t  oi  good  {or  easy)  lahour.  Eye,  literally  hole,  puncture,  perfora- 
tion. The  supposed  extravagance  of  this  comparison  led  to  the  early 
substitution  of  a  Greek  word  differing  from  aimel  only  in  a  single  letter, 
and  supposed  to  mean  a  rope  or  cable,  or  to  the  explanation  of  camel 
itself  in  this  unusual  sense.  For  the  latter  no  authority  whatever  is 
adduced,  and  for  the  former  only  that  of  a  Greek  lexicographer  and 
scholiast,  who  appears  to  have  invented  it  for  the  express  purpose  of 
relieving  an  'imaginary  difficulty  in  the  case  before  us.  The  device, 
however,  does  not  answer  the  intended  purpose,  as  a  cable  can  no  more 
pass  through  a  needle's  eye  than  a  camel.  As  to  the  congruity  of  the 
comparison,  that  is  a  question  of  taste  and  usage,  and  we  find  in  the 
Talmud  the  same  similitude  in  the  still  stronger  form  of  an  elephant, 
the  largest  of  known  quadrupeds.  Our  Saviour  also  has  the  camel 
elsewhere,  as  a  proverbial  similitude  for  something  great.  (See  Matt. 
23,  34.)  To  the  more  plausible  objection  that  it  represents  the  salva- 
tion of  the  rich  as  not  merely  difficult  but  impossible,  the  answer  is 
that  Christ  intended  so  to  represent  it  in  the  sense  explained  below  (in 
V.  27.) 

26.  And  they  were  astonished  out  of  measure,  saying 
among  themselves,  ^Vho  then  can  be  saved  ? 

This  emphatic  repetition  of  the  startling  proposition,  in  what 
seemed  to  be  an  exaggerated  form,  only  served  to  increase  the  amaze- 
ment of  our  Lord's  disciples.  And  (or  hut)  they  icere  excessively  aston- 
ished, not  the  verb  so  rendered  in  v.  24,  but  that  employed  in  1,  22.  G, 
2.  7j  37,  and  originally  meaning  struch  or  driven  from  their  usual  or  nor- 


MAEK  10,  26.  27.  285 

mal  state  of  mind  by  great  surprise  or  Tronder.  This  they  expressed 
by  saying  to  themsehes^  or  icith  thcmseUes^  i.  e.  to  one  another,  icho 
then  (literally,  and  wlio,  which  in  Greek  is  an  equivalent  expression) 
can  (is  able  to)  he  saved,  i.  e.  attain  to  everlasting  blessedness  (see 
above,  on  v.  17.  24.25.)  This  does  not  mean  merely  what  rich  man, 
which  would  be  an  unmeaning  echo  of  our  Lord's  own  words,  but 
ichat  man,  who  of  any  class  ?  The  logical  connection  has  been  vari- 
ously understood,  but  seems  to  be  most  naturally  this,  that  if  the 
rich,  or  the  more  highly  favoured  class,  are  thus  impeded  and  endan- 
gered b}'  the  very  advantages  which  they  enjoy,  how  can  others  be 
expected  to  attain  salvation  ?  Some  of  the  best  interpreters,  however, 
deny  any  reference  to  the  case  of  others  as  still  worse  than  that  of 
rich  men,  and  understand  the  disciples  as  simply  asking,  who  then 
can  escape  these  fearful  difficulties  and  obstructions  ?  This  implies 
that  they  looked  upon  the  peril  not  as  a  peculiar  but  a  common  one ; 
either  because  they  all  expected  to  be  rich  and  prosperous  in  Messiah's 
kingdom  ;  or  because  all  except  the  very  poorest  have  their  worldly 
interests  and  goods,  to  hinder  their  salvation,  in  the  same  way, 
although  not  in  the  same  measure ;  or  because  they  saw  the  principle 
involved  to  admit  of  a  much  wider  application,  just  as  the  test  to 
which  the  Saviour  brought  the  rich  young  ruler  might  be  modified  to 
suit  a  thousand  other  cases  besides  that  of  an  idolatrous  regard  to 
wealth  or  money.  According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  the  disci- 
ples' question  may  be  paraphrased  as  follows.  'If  then,  as  we  have 
just  heard,  property  or  wealth,  with  all  its  advantages  both  natural 
and.moral,  is  attended  by  such  snares  as  to  make  the  salvation  of  its 
owners  impossible  without  a  miracle  ;  and  if  this  is  only  one  out  of 
many  situations  and  conditions,  each  of  which  has  its  own  peculiar 
snares  and  stumbling-blocks,  e.quall}^  adverse  to  men's  salvation ;  how 
is  this  end  to  be  attained  at  all  in  any  case  ? ' 

27.  And  Jesus  looking  upon  them,  saith,  With  men 

(it  is)  impossible,  but  not  with   God  ;  for  with  God  all 

things  are  possible. 

LooJcing  fAjJon  (or  at)  them,  to  secure  attention  (as  in  v.  23),  and 
perhaps  at  the  same  time  to  express  a  tender  and  affectionate  regard 
to  them,  as  he  did  by  the  use  of  the  word  children  (in  v.  24.)  With 
men,  with  God,  i.  e.  on  man's  part  and  on  God's  respectivel}^,  or  so  far 
as  the  question  concerns  man  and  God.  Impossiljle,  not  merely  diffi- 
cult, which  would  have  required  a  very  different  example  or  similitude 
fi-om  that  in  v.  25,  since  the  passage  of  a  camel  (or  even  of  a  cable) 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle  is  not  merely  hard,  or  rather  is  not  hard  at 
all.  the  idea  of  difficulty  being  swallowed  up  in  that  of  sheer  impossi- 
bility. The  disciples  understood  this  more  correctly  than  some  learned 
critics  and  interpreters,  who  try  to  explain  our  Lord's  proverbial  illus- 
tration as  denoting  merely  something  very  hard.  The  true  solution 
is  afforded,  not  by  such  extenuation  of  his  language,  but  by  his  own 
restriction  of  its  import  in  the  words  with  men.      His  answer  to  the 


\ 


286  MARK  10,  27.  28.  29. 

question,  lolio  then  canlte  saved?  is,  'No  one,  if  salvation  were  depend- 
ent upon  human  po\Yer ;  neither  rich  nor  poor  would  then  be  saved, 
any  more  than  a  needle  can  be  threaded  with  a  camel  (or  a  cable)  ; 
but  of  God'a  power  there  is  no  such  limitation,  for  to  hnn  even  such 
impossibilities  are  possible  as  the  salvation  of  the  chief  of  sinners, 
or  of  those  whose  circumstances  seem  to  shut  them  out  forever  from 
his  kingdom.' 

28.  Then  Peter  began  to  say  nnto  liim,  Lo,  we  have 
left  all,  and  have  followed  thee. 

Then,  literally,  and,  according  to  the  common  text,  but  the  latest 
editors  have  neither.  Began  to  say,  not  merely  said,  but  said  at  once, 
immediately  rejoined,  perhaps  implying  also  that  he  did  not  finish,  but 
was  interrupted  by  our  Lord's  reply.  Lo,  behold,  see  here,  or  look  at 
this  case.  We,  the  disciples,  and  most  probably  the  twelve,  who  were 
his  constant  personal  attendants,  here  contrasted  with  the  ruler  and 
with  others  who  preferred  something  to  Christ's  special  service.  Left^ 
let  go,  abandoned,  given  up  all  {tilings),  i.  e.  our  worldly  occupations 
and  substance.  This  expression  shows  that  Peter  and  Andrew,  James 
and  John,  did  not,  as  some  think,  still  continue  fishermen,  any  more 
than  Matthew  still  remained  a  publican.  Even  John  21,  3.  may  and 
must  be  otherwise  explained.  Followed  thee,  not  merely  in  a  figura- 
tive spiritual  sense,  but  in  the  strict  one  of  personal  attendance.  This 
is  not  to  be  understood  as  a  mere  boastful  and  self-righteous  claim  to 
some  reward  for  their  meritorious  self-denial  and  devotion  to  their 
master,  although  something  of  this  spirit  may  have  mingled  with  the 
motives  of  the  speaker  and  of  those  in  whose  behalf  he  spoke ;  but,  in 
part  at  least,  as  a  solicitous  inquiry  whether  they  could  stand  the  test 
applied  to  the  young  ruler,  whether  they  had  proved  their  readiness  to 
give  up  all,  be  it  little  or  much,  for  their  master's  sake  and  service. 

29.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said,  Yerily,  I  say  nnto 

you,  There  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  brethren,  or 

sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  wife,  or  children,  or  lands, 

for  my  sake,  and  the  gosj^el's — 

And  Jesus  answering  said,  Verily  (amen)  /  say  to  you,  a  common 
formula  of  solemn  affirmation,  suited  both  to  fix  attention  and  com- 
mand belief.  Ho  man,  no  one,  no  person,  nobody,  without  regard  to 
difference  of  age  or  sex.  Left,  the  same  verb,  with  the  same  sense,  as 
in  v.  28.  What  follows  is  an  enumeration  of  the  ties  most  likely  to 
be  broken,  and  the  interests  most  likely  to  be  sacrificed,  by  those  who 
personally  followed  Christ  as  his  attendants  and  disciples.  The  latest 
critics  put  another  before  father,  and  omit  icife  altogether,  because  not 
found  in  the  Vatican  and  Cambridge  copies.  As  the  list  is  not  exhaus- 
tive but  illustrative,  and  might  be  therefore  closed  with  an  etcetera, 
the  omission  or  insertion  of  particular  items  can  have  no  effect  upon 
the  meaning  of  the   sentence.  Lands,  literally,  fields,  i.  e.    cultivated 


MARK  10,  29.  30.  287 

grounds.  For  the  sake  (or  on  account?)  of  me  and  (in  the  oldest  copies 
with  an  emphatic  repetition)  yj??*  tlie  sake  of  the  gospel^  i.  e.  not  only  to 
attend  me  personally  while  on  earth,  which  might  be  thought  an 
object  of  ambition,  but  to  spread  the  tidings  of  my  wisdom  and  salva- 
tion, even  when  separated  from  me. 

30.  But  lie  shall  receive  anliundredfold  now  in  tins 
time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and 
children,  and  lands,  with  persecutions  ;  and  in  the  world 
to  come,  eternal  life. 

But  he  shall  receive^  or  unless  he  receive,  an  idiom  of  peculiar  form 
but  unambiguous  meaning,  namely,  that  it  will  not  be  found  true  of 
any  one  that  he  has  thus  forsaken  all,  without  its  being  also  true  that 
he  receives,  &c.  The  two  things  will  and  must  go  together,  and  the 
one  is  just  as  certain  as  the  other.  An  hundredfold  is  not  an 
arithmetical  formula,  but  a  rhetorical  and  popular  expression  for  a  vast 
proportion  (see  above,  on  4.  8.  20.)  In  this  time,  not  merely  in  the 
present  life,  which  would  be  otherwise  expressed  (as  in  4, 19),  but  at 
this  critical  juncture,  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  erection  of 
his  kingdom,  during  which  the  trials  of  his  followers  were  greatest,  and 
themselves  least  able  to  endure  them.  Souse  and  brethren^  &c.,  i.  e. 
full  equivalents  for  such  of  these  advantages  as  any  one  has  sacrificed 
for  my  sake.  The  precise  form  of  the  compensation  is  not  stated,  be- 
cause indefinitely  various,  approaching  nearer  in  some  cases  than  in 
others  to  a  literal  restitution  on  a  larger  scale,  as  Bengel  beautifully 
hints  that  Paul  had  many  riiothers,  for  he  could  say  of  Rufus  (Rom.  16, 
13),  "his  mother  and  mine."  Whether  wife  in  the  preceding  verse  be 
genuine  or  not,  no  ancient  copy  has  the  plural  icives  in  this  verse  ;  nor 
is  there  any  reason  to  believe  that  there  was  ever  even  this  poor  pre- 
text for  the  sneer  of  Julian  the  Apostate,  that  believers  had  the 
promise  of  a  hundred  wives.  WitJi  persecutions  seems  so  much  at 
variance  with  the  tone  of  this  encouraging  assurance,  that  some  writers 
have  explained  it  to  mean  after  persecution  ;  but  although  the  Greek 
preposition  is  so  used,  it  is  only  when  followed  by  a  different  case.  The 
true  solution  seems  to  be.  that  this  clause  is  not  an  additional  specifi- 
cation of  what  Christ's  followers  should  experience,  but  a  reference  to 
what  had  been  implied  or  presupposed  throughout  the  passage.  The 
meaning  then  is,  not  that  they  shall  have  all  these  compensations  or 
equivalents  for  what  they  have  abandoned,  and  at  the  same  time  perse- 
cutions ;  but  that  with  the  persecutions  which  they  must  expect  at  all 
events,  they  shall  have  these  gracious  compensations  and  equivalents. 
In  the  iDorld  to  come,  or  in  the  corning  age  (or  dispensation'),  i,  e.  after 
the  erection  of  Christ's  kingdom,  but  without  excluding  heaven  or  a 
future  state  of  blessedness.  Life  everlasting,  i.  e.  a  holy  and  happy 
state  of  being,  as  secured  in  time  and  enjoyed  to  all  eternity. 

31.  But  many  (that  are)  first  shall  be  last,  and  the 
last  first. 


288  MARK  10,  31.  32. 

But  many  shall  he  first  last  and  last  first,  a  proverbial  expression 
which  our  Lord  probably  employed  on  various  occasions,  and  the  sense 
of  which  is  clear  notwithstanding  its  peculiar  form  as  exhibited  abovu 
in  an  exact  translation.  The  essential  meaning  of  the  phrase,  when- 
ever used  and  however  modified,  is  that  of  alternation  and  vicissitude, 
or  revolution  in  the  relative  position  of  those  to  whom  it  is  applied. 
In  this  place  it  would  seem  to  be  employed  as  a  caution  against  trust- 
ing to  appearances  or  to  the  permanence  of  present  circumstances  and 
conditions.  The  exhilarating  promise  of  abundant  recompense  to 
those  who  had  forsaken  all  for  Christ,  was  in  danger  of  being  misap- 
plied to  some  whose  self-denial  and  devotion  were  apparent  only.  Of 
such  cases  the  familiar  type  to  us  is  that  of  Judas,  then  perhaps  still 
unsuspected  b}'^  his  brethren,  but  soon  to  be  degraded  by  his  own  act 
from  the  first  rank  as  not  only  a  disciple  but  an  apostle,  charged 
with  special  functions  in  the  apostolic  body  (John  12,  G.  13,  29),  to  the 
last  and  lowest  rank  as  the  betrayer  and  the  murderer  of  his  Lord  and 
Master.  But  besides  this  unique  case,  there  were  no  doubt  multitudes 
of  others,  less  flagitious  and  important,  in  which  high  profession  and 
pretension  was  to  be  succeeded  by  a  proportionally  deep  debasement, 
so  that  many  who  then  seemed  first  would  become  last,  and  on  the 
other  hand,  many  of  the  most  degraded  and  abandoned  would  become 
first,  both  in  divine  and  human  estimation. 

32.  And  tliey  were  in  tlie  way,  going  up  to  Jerusalem  ; 
and  Jesus  went  before  tlieni,  and  they  were  amazed  ; 
and  as  tliey  followed,  they  were  afraid.  And  he  took 
again  the  twelve,  and  began  to  tell  them  what  things 
should  liappen  unto  him, 

And  they  were  in  the  icay  (or  on  the  road)  ascending  to  Jerusalem, 
i.  e.  they  were  still  upon  their  journey  when  the  following  discourse 
was  uttered.  This  is  another  intimation  that  we  have  before  us  a 
connected  narrative  (see  above,  on  v.  17.)  And  Jesv.s  icas  going  he- 
fore  them  (or  leading  them  foricard)^  which  seems  to  imply  some 
unusual  activity  or  energy  of  movement,  as  if  he  was  outstripping 
them,  in  token  of  his  eagerness  to  reach  the  scene  of  suffering.  This 
may  throw  some  light  upon  the  next  clause,  and  they  were  amazed,  or 
struck  with  awe,  tlie  same  verb  that  is  used  above  in  v.  2-1,  here  denot- 
ing probably  some  dai-k  foreboding  of  the  scenes  which  were  before 
them  in  Jerusalem,  a  feeling  which  would  naturally  make  them  slow 
to  follow  in  that  dangerous  direction,  and  dispose  them  to  wonder  at 
his  own  alacrity  in  rushing,  as  it  were,  upon  destruction  (John  11,  8.) 
And  following  they  feared  {or  were  alarmed)^  i.  e.  although  they  fol- 
lowed him.  it  was  not  willingly,  but  with  a  })ainful  apprehension  of 
danger  both  to  him  and  to  themselves.  There  is  something  very 
striking  in  the  picture  here  presented  of  the  Saviour  hastening  to 
death,  and  the  apostles  scarcely  venturing  to  follow  him.  This  back- 
vvardnes.s  would  not  be  diminished  by  liis  taking  again  theticelve,  i.  e. 


MARK  10,  32.  33.  34.  289 

taking  them  aside  from  the  others  who  accompanied  him  on  his  jour- 
ney (see  above,  on  9,  2.)  He  'began  (anew  what  he  had  done  more 
than  once  before)  to  tell  them  the  {things)  about  to  ha^jpen  to  him. 
This  is  commonly  reckoned  our  Lord's  third  prediction  of  his  passion 
to  the  twelve  apostles  (see  above,  on  8,  31.  9,  31) ;  but  including  the 
less  formal  intimation  in  9,  12,  it  may  be  counted  as  the  fourth. 

33.  (Saying),  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  be  delivered  unto  the  chief  priests,  and 
unto  the  scribes  ;  and  they  shall  condemn  him  to  death, 
and  shall  deliver  him  to  the  Gentiles. 

Behold  invites  attention  and  prepares  them  for  something  strange 
and  surprising,  as  the  intimation  of  his  death  still  was  to  them,  al- 
though so  frequently  repeated.  We  are  ascending  to  Jerusalem^  the 
form  of  expression  always  used  in  speaking  of  the  Holy  City,  on 
account  both  of  its  physical  and  moral  elevation.  (Compare  Luke  2, 
.  42.  John  2, 13.  5, 1.  7,  8.  10.  14.  11,  55.  Acts  11,  2.  15,  2.  18,  22.  2i; 
4.  12.  15.  24,  11,  25,  1.  9.  Gal.  2, 1.  2.)  The  prediction  is  the 
same  as  in  the  former  cases,  but  with  a  more  distinct  intimation  that 
he  was  to  suffer  by  judicial  process,  or  by  form  of  law.  They  (the 
Sanhedrim,  the  national  council  or  representatives)  shall  condemn  him 
to  deatJi,  and  deliver  him  to  the  Gentiles  (literally,  nations,  meaning 
all  nations  but  the  Jews)  for  the  execution  of  the  sentence,  all  which 
was  literally  fulfilled,  as  we  shall  see  below. 

34.  And  they  shall  mock  him,  and  shall  scom-ge  him, 
and  shall  spit  upon  him,  and  shall  kill  him ;  and  the  third 
day  he  shall  rise  again. 

This  verse  describes  the  part  to  be  taken  by  the  Gentiles  in  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  every  particular  of  which  has  its  correspond- 
ing facts  in  the  subsequent  narrative ;  the  mocking  (see  below,  on  15, 
16-20)  ;  the  scourging  (see  below,  on  15,  15)  ;  the  spitting  (see  below, 
on  15, 19)  ;  the  killing  (see  below,  on  15,  25)  ;  and  the  rising  (see  be- 
low, on  16,  6.  9.)  Here  again  the  terms  of  the  prediction  may  appear 
to  us  too  plain  to  be  mistaken ;  but,  as  we  have  seen  already,  the  cor- 
rect understanding  does  not  depend  upon  the  plainness  of  the  lan- 
guage, but  upon  the  principle  of  interpretation.  If  they  attached  a 
mystical  or  figurative  meaning  to  the  terms,  it  mattered  not  how  plain 
they  might  be  in  themselves  or  in  their  literal  acceptation,  which 
they  piobably  supposed  to  be  precluded  by  the  certainty  that  he  was 
to  reign  and  to  possess  a  kingdom.     (See  above,  on  9,  32.) 

35.  36.  And  James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
came  unto  him,  saying,  Master,  we  would  that  thou 
shouldest  do  for  us  whatsoever  we  shall   desire.     And 

13 


290  M  A  E  K  10,  35-37. 

he  said  niito  tliem,  What  would  ye  that  I  should  do  for 
you  ? 

How  deeply  rooted  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  was  this  notion  of 
a  secular  and  outward  reign,  Mark  now  shows  by  relating  an  extraor- 
dinary movement  on  the  part  of  two  of  them,  among  the  first  who 
had  been  called  to  be  disciples  and  apostles  (see  above,  on  1,  19.)  He 
omits  the  circumstance  preserved  by  JMatthew  (20,  20),  that  they. 
offered  this  petition  through  their  mother,  or  perhaps  united  with  her 
in  it.  They  begin,  as  if  ashamed  of  their  request,  or  conscious  that  it 
might  be  properly  refused,  by  desiring  Christ  to  grant  it  without  hear- 
ing it.  We  would  (or  rather  icill},  i.  e.  we  wish,  desire,  that  tchatever 
we  may  asTc  tliou  do  for  us.  The  same  unreasonable  and  circuitous 
form  of  application  may  be  seen  in  Bathsheba's  request  to  Solomon 
for  Adonijah  (1  Kings  2,  20.)  But  instead  of  promising  beforehand 
like  Solomon  and  Herod  (see  above  on  6,  23)  to  grant  the  request, 
whatever  it  might  be,  our  Lord,  though  perfectly  aware  of  it,  requires 
it  to  be  plainly  stated,  not  for  his  own  information,  but  for  then-  con- 
viction and  reproof.  (See  above,  on  5,  30-33.)  What  would  ye  that 
I  should^  or  more  simply  and  exactly,  what  do  ye  wish  (or  desire^  me 
to  do  for  you  ? 

37.  They  said  unto  him,  Grant  unto  us  that  we  may 
sit,  one  on  thy  right  liand,  and  the  other  on  thy  left  hand, 
in  thy  glory. 

On  thy  right  hand^  on  thy  left  hand.,  literally,  from  thy  rights,  from 
thy  lefts,  i.  e.  the  parts  or  places  on  thy  right  and  left,  the  Greek  idiom 
employing />'6>m  where  we  say  on  or  «Y,  in  speaking  of  direction  or  relative 
position.  The  two  places  here  described  are  those  of  honour  everywhere, 
not  only  in  the  east  or  in  ancient  times,  but  at  any  public  dinner  no 
less  than  in  royal  courts.  The  desire  to  be  near  him  was  not  wrong 
in  itself,  but  only  as  involving  an  unwillingness  that  others  should 
enjoy  the  same  advantage.  This  desire  may  have  been  nurtured  by  the 
honour  which  he  had  already  put  upon  these  two  with  Peter,  and  by 
the  place  which  John  appears  to  have  occupied  at  table  next  to  Christ, 
and  therefore  leaning  or  reclining  on  his  bosom  (see  above  on  5,  37. 
9,  2,  and  compare  John  13,  23.)  The  expression  of  it  may  have  been 
called  forth  at  this  time  by  the  recent  promise  that  in  the  regeneration 
or  reorganization  of  the  church,  the  twelve  should  sit  upon  as  many 
thrones  judging  the  tribes  of  Israel  (Matt.  19,  28.  Luke  22,  30.)  Be- 
ferring  to  this  promise,  they  seem  here  to  ask  that  they  may  till  the 
nearest  seats  to  that  of  Christ  himself.  In  thy  glory,  not  that  of  his 
second  advent  or  his  reign  in  heaven,  but  of  his  regal  state  or  mani- 
fested royalty  on  earth,  which  they  no  doubt  believed  to  be  immedi- 
ately at  hand. 


Q 


8.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Ye  know  not  what  ye 


MARK   10,  38.  39.  291 


ask :  can   ye  drink  of  the   cnp  that  I   drink  of,  and  be 
baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ? 

Ye  IcnoiD  not  ichat  ye  ash,  i.  e.  you  think  that  you  are  asking  only 
for  honour  and  distinction,  when  in  fact  yoa  are  asking  for  distress 
and  suffering,  as  that  which  must  necessarily  precede  it,  and  in  which 
those  nearest  to  me  must  expect  to  be  the  largest  sharers.  Ckin  ye  (are 
ye  able  to)  drink  the  cup  (not  of  the  cup,  which  weakens  the  expres- 
sion, but  the  very  cup  or  draught)  which  I  drinlc  (of  ov  from  is,  a 
partitive  expression,  not  in  the  original.)  This  is  the  more  important 
as  the  cup  itself  is  a  scriptural  figure  for  one's  providential  portion  or 
the  lot  assigned  to  him  by  God,  whether  this  be  good  or  evil  (see 
below,  on  14,  36,  and  compare  Ps.  11,  6.  16,  5.  Isai.  51, 17.  Jer.  25, 
15.  Ez.  23,  31.)  The  same  thought  is  then  clothed  in  another  figure, 
that  of  baptism  or  purifying  washing  (see  above,  on  7,  4.  8.)  (Can 
ye,  are  ye  able.  i.  e.  have  ye  fortitude  and  power  of  endurance)  to  he 
baptized,  i.  e.  bathed,  but  with  specific  reference  to  the  ceremonial 
washings  of  the  law,  (with)  the  l)ap>tism  whereicith  I  am  hapAized. 
The  original  derives  inimitable  strength  and  beauty  from  the  simple 
collocation  {icherewith  I  am  'baptized  to  le  hajjtized^,  and  especially 
from  the  juxtaposition  of  these  two  forms  of  the  same  verb  QianTiCo- 
fiat  jBaiTTLa'irii'aL.) 

39.  And  they  said  unto  him,  "We  can.    And  Jesns  said 

unto  tliem,  Ye  shall  indeed  drink  of  the  cu])  that  I  drink 

of,  and  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  withal  shall 

ye  be  baptized. 

It  is  certainly  creditable  both  to  the  fidelity  and  courage  of  these 
two  disciples,  that  they  do  not  shrink  from  this  demand,  or  seek  to  be 
exempted  from  participation  in  the  sufferings  of  their  master,  though 
they  may  have  had  obscure  and  confused  notions  as  to  what  those  suf- 
ferings were.  It  is  not  impossible  that  they  expected  to  be  under  the 
necessity  of  fighting  for  the  cause  which  they  espoused,  a  prospect  not 
necessarily  appalling  to  these  Sons  of  Thunder,  however  shocking  to 
the  modern  sentimental  and  efieminate  idea  of  the  "  gentle  Jolm."  We 
can,  we  are  able,  is  a  resolute  and  brave  but  rash  self-confident  assur- 
ance, showing  plainly  that  they  had  no  sense  of  their  own  weakness, 
or  correct  idea  of  the  dangers  which  awaited  them.  Their  Lord  how- 
ever takes  them  at  their  word,  and  promises  that  so  far  and  in  this 
sense  they  shall  hold  a  high  place  and  T)ne  near  himself  by  sharing  in 
his  sufferings.  This  prediction  was  fulfilled  in  both  the  brothers,  but 
in  a  very  different  manner.  James  was  the  fii'st  apostolical  martjT 
(Acts  12,  2)  ;  John  was  the  last  survivor  of  the  twelve,  making  up,  as 
has  been  well  said,  by  the  variety  and  length  of  his  distresses,  for  the 
absence  of  the  bloody  crown.  Even  admitting  that  the  legend  of  the 
poison  and  the  boiling  oil  has  no  historical  foundation,  it  is  still  true 
that  John,  as  well  as  James,  pre-eminently  shared  his  master's  cup 
and  baptism. 


292  MARK  10,  40.  41.  42. 

40.  But  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  hand, 
is  not  mine  to  give  ;  but  (it  shall  be  given  to  them)  for 
whom  it  is  prepared. 

This  verse  has  been  the  subject  of  dispute  for  ages,  some  employing 
it  to  disprove  the  divinity  of  Christ  because  irreconcilable  with  his 
omniscience.  Others,  granting  that  he  here  disclaims  the  power  in 
question,  understand  it  merely  of  his  present  errand  or  commission, 
into  which  the  distribution  of  rewards  and  honours  did  not  enter.  A 
third  very  ancient  and  most  usual  interpretation  takes  l)ut  in  the  sense 
oiiLnless  or  except^  and  understands  the  sentence  merely  as  determin- 
ing the  objects.  The  construction  thus  assumed,  though  not  sustained 
by  general  usage,  is  sufficiently  sanctioned  by  comparing  Matt.  17,  8 
with  Mark  9.  8.  The  real  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  interpretation 
is,  that  it  assigns  no  reason  for  our  Lord's  denial  of  their  prayer,  which 
all  the  explanations  take  for  granted.  But  what  if  it  was  not  refused, 
but  only  veiled,  in  order  to  divert  their  attention  from  the  honours  to 
the  hardships  of  his  service  ?  What  if  they  were  indeed  to  be  pre- 
eminent, not  only  as  partakers  of  his  sufferings,  but  also  of  his  glory,  yet 
were  not  to  be  immediately  apprised  of  this  distinction  ?  How  could 
this  have  been  more  wisely  represented  than  it  is  in  this  verse  ?  '  Yes, 
you  shall  be  near  me  and  like  me  in  my  sufferings,  and  as  to  what  you 
are  to  be  besides,  leave  that  to  me ;  the  whole  thing  is  arranged  and  set- 
tled, and  I  neither  will  nor  can  disturb  it.  What  you  ask  is  to  be 
given  to  those  for  whom  the  Father  has  prepared  it  (Matt.  20,  23),  and 
I  woukl  not  if  1  could  bestow  it  upon  others.' 

41.  And  when  the  ten  heard  (it),  they  began  to  be 
much  displeased  with  James  and  Jolm. 

When  the  ten  heard  it  seems  to  mean  when  they  afterwards  heard 
of  it ;  but  the  strict  sense  of  the  Greek  words  is.  the  ten  hearing^  i.  e. 
at  the  time,  being  present  at  the  whole  transaction.  Began^  but  did 
not  long  continue,  their  displeasure  being  soon  allayed  by  their  mas- 
ter's wise  and  gracious  interference.  To  be  much  displeased^  or  grieved 
and  indignant,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above  in  v.  14  and  there  ex- 
plained. With,  literally,  ahout^  concerning,  i.  e.  on  account  of  the  re- 
quest which  they  had  made. 

42.  But  Jesus  called  •tliem  (to  liim),  and  saitli  unto 
them,  Ye  know  that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule 
over  the  Gentiles,  exercise  lordship  over  them  ;  and  their 
great  ones  exercise  authority  upon  them. 

Calling  to  them^  or  calling  them  to  (him),  as  they  were  quarrelling 
among  themselves,  (For  the  usage  of  the  Greek  verb,  see  above,  on 
o,  1  ?u  23.  G,  7.  7. 14.  8, 1.  34.)  Those  appearing  (or  supposed  by  them- 
selves and  others)  to  rule  the  nations,  literally,  to  take  the  lead  or  be 


MARK  10,  42-45.  29 


Q 


the  first  among  them.  (See  above,  on  3,  22,  where  the  participle  of 
the  same  verb  means  a  prince  or  ruler,  and  compare  Luke  18, 18,  where 
it  is  applied  to  the  rich  man  mentioned  in  vs.  17-22  of  this  chapter.) 
Accounted  to  rule  is  understood  by  some  as  referring  to  the  unsubstan- 
tial nature  of  all  human  principalities  and  powers.  But  as  the  tjn^anny 
ascribed  to  them  is  any  thing  but  unsubstantial,  others  with  more 
probability  explain  the  phrase  as  simply  meaning,  those  who  are  re- 
cognized as  chiefs  and  generally  known  to  be  so.  Lord  it  over  them, 
oppress  them,  a  verb  elsewhere  rendered  overcome  (Acts  19, 16)  and 
heing  lords  over  (1  Pet.  5,  3),  and  even  in  the  parallel  part  of  Matthew 
(20,  25)  exercise  dominion^  a  variation  altogether  arbitrary,  as  the  mean- 
ing is  identical  in  all  these  cases.  Great  ones,  grandees,  a  synonymous 
expression  added  to  complete  the  description  by  combining  greatness 
with  priority  of  rank  and  power.  Exercise  autliority.  a  similar  parallel 
to  the  verb  in  the  first  clause,  both  resembling  one  another,  not  in 
meaning  only  but  in  form,  being  compounded  with  the  same  preposi- 
tion (^KaTo.)  which  is  either  an  intensive  significant  of  downward  motion 
or  oppression  from  above,  as  if  he  had  said,  exercising  power  down 
upon  their  subjects.  The  essential  idea  here  expressed  is,  that  in 
worldly  governments  superiority  of  rank  can  only  be  maintained  by 
force  and  by  coercing  or  restraining  those  below.  Gentiles  in  this  verse 
should  be  nations,  there  being  no  allusion  to  religious  differences,  unless 
he  be  understood  as  intimating  that  the  theocracy  was  necessarily  ex- 
clusive of  all  tyranny  in  theory  if  not  in  j)ractice. 

43.  4tt.  But  SO  shall  it  not  be  among  yon  ;  but  whoso- 
ever will  be  great  among  you,  shall  be  yonr  minister, 
and  w^hosoever  of  you  will  be  the  chiefest  shall  be  ser- 
vant of  all. 

]>fot  80,  hoicerer,  shall  it  he  (or  according  to  the  latest  critics,  is  it) 
among  you,  literally,  in  you,  i.  e.  in  my  kingdom,  of  which  you  are  to 
be  ministers  and  rulers.  In  opposition  to  this  secular  or  worldly  domi- 
nation, he  repeats  the  maxim  uttered  on  a  previous  occasion  (see 
above,  on  9,  35),  but  in  a  fuller  and  a  more  expanded  form.  Whoever 
wishes  (or  desires)  to  decome  great  (or  pre-eminent  in  dignity)  among 
you,  shall  he  your  stf7T<2?i^  (or  attendant),  the  word  afterwards  used 
in  the  official  sense  of  minister  and  deacon.  In  v.  44,  he  uses  a  still 
stronger  term  for  sej'vant,  to  wit,  that  which  strictly  means  a  slave. 
For  the  twofold  application  of  the  words,  as  a  promise  and  a  threaten- 
ing, sec  above,  on  9,  35. 

45.  For  even  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered 
unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many. 

They  had  no  right  to  regard  this  as  a  hard  sa3'ing,  for  their  master's 
precept  was  enforced  by  his  example.  Eveii  tlie  Son  of  Man,  the  Mes- 
siah in  his  humiliation,  came  not,  did  not  come  into  the  world,  to  he 
ministered  unto,  waited  upon,  personally  served  by  others,  hut  to 
minister  to  serve  or  wait  on  others.     This  was  true  as  to  the  whole 


294  MARK  10.  45.  46. 

course  of  his  public  life,  but  most  emphatically  true  of  the  great  sacri- 
fice which  was  to  end  it,  and  of  which  he  had  as  yet  said  little,  though 
it  was  the  great  end  of  his  mission  and  his  incarnation,  to  give  Jiis  life^ 
or  soul,  i.  e.  himself,  his  person,  as  a  ransom^  that  by  which  one  is  set 
fiee,  and  more  especially,  the  price  paid  to  redeem  (buy  back  again)  a 
slave  or  captive  out  of  bondage.  This  was  the  purchase  which  the  Son 
of  Man  had  come  to  make  by  the  payment  of  himself,  his  very  soul  or 
life,  as  a  satisfaction  to  the  divine  justice.  For,  not  merely  for  the  bene- 
fit, but  in  the  place  of,  as  their  substitute,  the  only  meaning  which  the 
particle  here  used  will  bear  in  this  connection.  Many,  distinguished 
both  from  one  and  all,  and  here  applied  to  true  believers,  or  the  elect 
of  God,  for  whom  Christ  came  to  suffer.  This  great  doctrine,  so  abun- 
dantl}^  taught  elsewhere,  is  incidentally  used  here  to  show  the  great- 
ness of  the  Saviour's  condescension  and  self-sacrificing  love  as  mani- 
fested to  his  enemies,  and  thus  affording  a  constrainins  motive  for 
an  infinitely  less  degree  of  self-denial  on  the  part  of  his  followers  to- 
wards one  another. 

46.  And  tliey  came  to  Jericho;  and  as  lie  went  out  of 

Jericho  with  his  disciples,  and  a  great  number  of  people, 

blind  Bartimeus,  the  son  of  Timeiis,  sat  by  the  highway 

side  begging. 

And  they  come  to  Jericho,  pursuing  the  same  journey  which  has 
been  the  subject  of  the  narrative  since  the  beginning  of  this  chapter. 
Having  passed  through  Perea,  i.  e.  east  of  Jordan,  till  he  reached  the 
latitude  of  Jerusalem,  he  now  turned  westward,  crossing  the  river,  and 
stopping  at  Jericho,  the  first  important  station  on  the  great  road  to  the 
Holy  City.  This  ancient  town,  situated  five  miles  west  of  Jordan  and 
twenty  east  of  Jerusalem,  was  destroyed  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan  un- 
der Joshua  (6,  26),  but  afterwards  rebuilt  (1  Kings  16,  34),  and  men- 
tioned in  the  history  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  (2  Kings  2,  5. 15.)  It  was 
famous  for  its  palm-trees  (Deut.  34,  3)  and  its  balsam,  a  most  profit- 
able article  of  trade.  The  city  is  described  by  Joscphus  as  in  his  day 
populous  and  flourishing,  but  now  exists  onlj'-  as  a  wretched  hamlet 
still  called  Hiha,  a  slight  modification  of  the  Hebrew  name.  And  he 
going  (setting  out,  journeying)  jO'om  Jericho,  either  on  his  way  to  Jeru- 
salem, or  on  some  excursion  to  the  neighbourhood.  And  his  discijjJeSj 
i.  e.  the  apostles,  perhaps  with  others  who  habitually  followed  him. 
And  a  great  crowds  literally,  croicd  enough,  an  idiom  not  unlike  the 
use  of  the  French  assez  before  adjectives  denoting  quantity  or  number. 
This  crowd  was  probably  comi)Osed  of  people  going  up  to  keep  the  pass- 
over,  and  had  been  swollen  by  continual  accessions  from  the  towns  and 
neighbourhoods  through  which  they  passed.  77te  son  of  Timeus  stands 
first  in  the  original  though  not  in  the  translation.  Timeus  is  a  common 
name  in  Greek,  but  is  usually  here  regarded  as  an  Aramaic  one.  Bar- 
timeus is  the  same  name  with  the  Aramaic  word  for  son  prefixed, 
a  very  common  form  in  that  age,  as  appears  from  the  occurrence  of  so 
many  instances  in  the  New  Testament  (Bartholomew.  Barabbas,  Bar- 


MARK  10,  4G-49.  295 

Jonas,  Barjesus,  Barnabas,  Barsabas,  &c.)  Blind  Bartimeus,  or  more 
exactly,  Bartimeus  the  Mind,  implying  that  he  was  a  well-known 
character  at  Jericho,  which  may  account  for  his  being  named  exclu- 
sively b}''  Mark  (compare  Luke  18,  35),  while  Matthew  (20,  30)  in- 
forms us  that  there  was  another  (see  above,  on  5, 2.)  By  the  way, 
along  the  road,  most  probably  that  leading  to  Jerusalem. 

47.  And  when  he  neard  that  it  was  Jesns  of  l^azareth, 
he  began  to  cry  out,  and  say,  Jesus,  (thou)  son  of  David, 
have  mercy  on  me. 

It  was  Jesus  of  JSTazareth,  literally,  Jesus  the  Ifazarene  is  (the  one 
passing  by.)  This  was  the  familiar  and  indeed  contemptuous  appellation 
by  which  our  Lord  was  generally  known,  and  in  the  use  of  which 
Matthew  (2,  23)  represents  the  prophecies  of  his  humiliation  as  fulfilled 
(see  above,  on  1,  24.)  Re  'began,  immediately,  as  soon  as  he  had  heard 
this,  and  continued  so  to  do  until  he  gained  his  end.  To  cry  and  say, 
i.  e.  to  say  aloud  or  with  a  loud  voice.  Son  of  David,  his  descendant 
and  successor  on  the  throne  of  Israel,  a  remarkable  acknowledgment  of 
his  Messiahship  (see  below,  on  12,  35),  preserved  in  all  the  three  ac- 
counts, and  strikingly  contrasted  with  the  other  designation  in  the  first 
clause.  '  You  call  him  familiarly,  if  not  disrespectfully,  the  Nazarene, 
but  I  address  him  as  the  son  of  David.'  Have  mercy  on  me,  an 
acknowledgment  of  misery,  unworthiness,  and  helplessness,  as  well  as  of 
strong  confidence  in  Christ's  ability  and  willingness  to  help  him. 

48.  And  many  charged  him  that  he  shouki  hold  his 
peace ;  but  he  cried  the  more  a  great  deal,  (Thou)  son  of 
David,  have  mercy  on  me. 

Charged  him,  the  verb  rendered  rehiiked  in  v.  13  and  often  else- 
where (1,  25.  4,  39.  8,  32.  33.  9,  25),  but  here  (as  in  3, 12.  8,  30)  mean- 
ing to  command  in  a  threatening  or  reproving  manner.  Hold  his  feace, 
be  silent,  or  say  nothing  (see  above,  on  3.,  4.  4,  39.  9,  34.)  There  is  no 
need  of  supi)0sing  a  malignant  motive  for  this  interference,  which  was 
evidently  prompted  by  a  natural  desire  to  prevent  disturbance,  and  pre^ 
serve  the  Prophet  from  annoyance,  even  the  highest  private  interests, 
in  all  such  cases,  being  looked  upon  as  unimportant.  The  more  a  great 
deal,  literally,  much  more,  i.  e.  than  he  did  at  first,  thus  showing  both 
the  strength  of  his  desire  for  healing  and  of  his  faith  in  Christ's  ability 
to  grant  it. 

49.  And  Jesus  stood  still,  and  commanded  him  to  be 
called  ;  and  they  call  the  blind  man,  saying  unto  him.  Be 
of  good  comfort,  rise,  he  calleth  thee. 

Stood  still,  literally,  standing,  stopping,  as  he  journeyed,  at  the 
sound  of  that  importunate  petition,  and  perhaps  of  the  reproofs  and 


296  M  A  K  K  10,  49-52. 


threats  which  mingled  with  it.  Commanded  7dm  to  de  called,  or,  ac- 
cording; to  the  latest  critics,  5a/(/,  Call  liwi!  This  was  a  virtual  re- 
proof of  the  reprovers,  as  it  ordered  them,  instead  of  keeping  him  away, 
to  bring  him  into  Jesus'  presence.  In  obedience  to  this  command,  tliey 
call  him.,  i.  e.  no  doubt  the  same  persons  who  had  tried  to  silence  him, 
a  change  of  tone  so  natural  and  common  in  such  cases  that  it  is  not 
necessary,  if  it  is  admissible,  to  put  these  words  into  the  mouth  of  other 
speakers.  Be  of  good  comfort,  cheer  up.  or  take  courage,  the  verb  used 
above  in  G,  50,  and  there  explained.  He  calls  thee,  summons  thee,  re- 
quires thee  to  approach  him.  This  is  evidently  spoken  of  as  something 
strange  and  unexpected  to  themselves,  if  not  to  Bartimeus. 

50.  And  he,  casting  awaj  his  garment,  rose  and  came 
to  Jesns. 

His  garment,  upper  garment,  cloak  or  mantle  (see  above,  on  2,  21. 
5.  27.  C,  56.  9,  3),  thrown  aside  to  facilitate  his  motions  at  the  risk  per- 
haps of  losing  it.  Rising,  standing  up,  from  his  scat  at  the  wayside 
(see  above  on  v.  46.) 

51.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  What 
wilt  thou  tliat  I  should  do  unto  the^  ?  The  blind  man 
said  unto  him,  Lord,  that  I  might  receive  my  sight. 

Ansicering,  responding  to  the  reiterated  praj'cr  for  mercy  which  noth- 
ing had  been  able  to  suppress,  and  which  therefore  seemed  to  indicate 
a  more  than  usual  intensity  of  faith  as  well  as  of  desire.  Wliat  icilt 
thou  (dost  thou  wish,  desire)  I  shall  do  to  thee,  or  for  thee,  i.  e.  for  thy 
benefit  or  service.  Lord,  in  the  original,  Raljhoni  or  Bahlwuni,  the 
identical  Aramaic  word  which  Bartimeus  uttered,  and  which  Mark,  as  in 
several  like  cases,  has  preserved  to  us,  perhaps  enabled  so  to  do  by 
Peter's  vivid  recollections  (see  above,  on  5,  41.  7, 11.  34.)  That  I  may 
see  again,  one  of  the  original  meanings  of  the  Greek  verb  which  is  some- 
times no  less  correctly  rendered  looTc  up  (see  above,  on  6,  41.  7,  34.  8, 
24.  25.) 

52.  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Go  thy  way  ;  thy  faith 
hath  made  thee  whole.  And  immediately  he  received  his 
sight,  and  followed  Jesus  in  the  way. 

Go  thy  way,  go  awaj--,  depart,  begone,  implying  that  his  prayer  was 
already  granted,  and  his  further  presence  no  more  needed.  Thy  faith 
hath  saved  thee,  both  from  bodily  and  spiritual  blindness  (sec  above, 
on  2,  9.)  Immediately,  without  delay  or  preparation  as  occasion- 
ally practised  (sec  above,  on  1,  31.  2.  5.  3,  3.  5,  8.  7,  27.  33.  8,  23.  9, 
21),  he  loolced  uj),  or  saw  again,  received  his  sight.  But  instead  of 
obeying  the  command  or  accepting  the  permission  to  go  home  or  else- 


MARK  11,  1.  297 

where,  he  followed  1dm  (or  according  to  the  common  i<i:sX,  Jesus)  in  the 
way^  i.  e.  upon  his  journey,  forming  part  of  the  great  multitude  which 
accompanied  his  public  entrance  to  the  Holy  City  as  recorded  in  the 
following  chapter. 


-•♦♦- 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Having  finished  his  account  of  Christ's  long  journe}'-  to  Jerusalem, 
Mark,  passing  over  some  particulars  preserved  by  Luke  and  John,  re- 
lates his  joyful  recognition  by  the  multitude  as  the  Messiah,  and  his 
public  entrance  as  such  into  the  Hol}^  City  (1-11.)  On  his  private 
entrance  the  next  daj-  with  his  disciples,  he  pronounces  a  symbolical 
judgment  on  a  barren  fig-tree,  as  a  type  or  representative  of  unbelieving 
Israel  (12-14.)  In  the  exercise  of  his  official  powers  he  expells  all 
traders  from  the  sacred  enclosure  of  the  temple,  thereby  leading  to  a 
new  combination  of  his  enemies  (15-19.)  Returning  the  next  day  from 
Bethany,  where  all  his  nights  were  spent  at  this  time,  they  observe  the 
fig-tree  to  be  already  blasted,  which  occasions  a  discourse  upon  the 
faith  of  miracles  (20-26.)  On  his  arrival  at  the  temple  he  is  met  by 
a  demand  from  the  authorities  to  show  his  right  to  act  as  he  was  doing 
and  the  source  of  his  alleged  commission,  which  he  answers  by  refer- 
ring them  to  John  the  Baptist,  who  had  foretold  his  appearance  and 
vouched  for  his  divine  legation  (27-33.)  The  new  features  which  dis- 
tinguish this  part  of  the  histor}-,  besides  the  change  of  scene  from  the 
villages  of  Galilee  and  Perea  to  the  streets  and  temple  of  Jerusalem, 
are  Christ's  avowal  of  his  Messianic  claims,  and  his  assertion  of  them 
b}^  official  acts,  and  in  reply  to  the  objections  of  the  national  authori- 
ties. The  consecution  or  coherence  of  the  narrative  is  proved  not  only 
b}'  the  mutual  connection  of  its  parts  but  also  by  the  exact  concurrence 
of  one.  two,  or  all  the  other  gospels,  both  as  to  the  substance  and  the 
order  of  the  topics. 

1.  And  wlien  tliey  came  mg\\  to  Jerusalem,  unto 
Eetli]jliage  and  Bethany,  at  the  mount  of  Olives,  he  send- 
cth  forth  two  of  his  disciples. 

As  he  draws  near  to  Jerusalem,  our  Lord  prepares  for  his  public 
entrance  there  as  the  Messiah.  When  they  approaeh  (or  me  near)  to 
(literally  iiito^  perhaps  iqj  to,  as  fiir  as)  Jerusalem,  to  (the  same  par- 
ticle, as  far  as)  Bethjjhage  and  Bethany^  two  villages  east  of  Jerusalem, 
and  probably  very  near  together.  They  are  here  named  to  designate 
the  neighbourhood.  The  names  are  supposed  to  mean  hovse  (or  plwe) 
of  figs  and  dates  respectively.  Bethan}^  is  elsewhere  mentioned  (John 
IL  i)  as  the  residence  of  Martha,  Mary,  and  Lazarus,  from  whom  it 

13^ 


298  MARK  11,  1.  2 


o. 


derives  its  present  name.  It  was  fifteen  furlongs  from  the  city.  Beth- 
phage  has  wholly  disappeared.  At,  close  to  (as  on  1,  33.  2.  2.  4, 1.  5, 
11.  22.  C,  3.  7,  25.  9, 10),  the  Mount  of  Olives,  the  high  ridge  east  of 
Jerusalem  and  separated  from  it  by  the  valley  of  Kedron  (John  18, 1.) 
The  present  tense  throughout  this  passage  represents  the  scene  as 
actually  passing.  Sendeth  forth,  or  aicay,  i.  e.  away  from  him  and 
from  the  other  disciples. 

2.  And  saitli  unto  tliem,  Go  your  way  into  the  village 
over  against  you,  and  as  soon  as  ye  be  entered  into  it,  ye 
shall  find  a  colt  tied,  whereon  never  man  sat ;  loose  him, 
and  bring  (him.) 

Go  your  way,  i.  e.  go  away,  or  simply  go,  there  being  but  one  word 
in  the  original.  (See  above,  on  1,  4-4.  2*  11.  7,  29.  10,  21.  52.)  O^er 
against,  opposite,  immediately  before  you.  This  is  commonly  supposed 
to  be  one  of  the  two  villages  just  mentioned,  probably  the  first,  as  we 
know  from  John  (12,  T.  12)  that  Christ  set  out  from  Bethany  on  this 
occasion.  Immediately  entering  you  will  find  a  colt  tied,  on  tchich  no 
one  of  men  has  sat,  a  circumstance  required  in  certain  animals  em- 
ployed in  religious  uses.  (Compare  Deut.  21,  3.  1  Sam.  C,  7.)  Loos- 
ing (or  untying)  bring  him. 

3.  And  if  any  man  say  unto  you,  WJiy  do  ye  this  ? 
say  ye  that  the  Lord  hath  need  of  him  ;  and  straightway 
he  will  send  him  hither. 

Our  Lord  anticipates  the  question  which  would  necessarily  occur  to 
the  disciples,  namely,  what  they  were  to  do  if,  as  they  must  expect, 
objection  should  be  made  to  their  proceedings.  If  any  man  (i.  e.  any 
person,  any  body,  any  one)  should  ask  them  what  they  were  doing,  or 
why  they  did  it,  they  were  simply  to  reply  that  the  Lord  had  need  of 
it  (the  colt),  and  immediately  he  sends  it  here  (or  hither),  the  present 
tense  denoting  the  result,  because  so  certain,  as  already  taking  place. 
The  Lord  is  understood  by  some  in  its  highest  sense  as  a  divine  name, 
the  Kew  Testament  equivalent  to  Jeliovah  (see  above,  on  1,  3.  5,  19)  ; 
by  others  in  its  lowest  sense,  as  simply  meaning  our  Lord  or  Master, 
without  claiming  for  him  any  higher  honours.  In  realit}',  and  therefore 
in  our  Lord's  intention,  the  two  meanings  are  coincident,  though  not 
identical ;  but  how  the  owner  of  the  colt  would  imderstand  the  title  is 
another  question.  If  we  assume  that  he  was  a  mere  stranger,  and  that 
his  consent  was  secured  by  an  immediate  divine  intluence,  it  seems 
most  probable  that  he  would  understand  the  Lord  as  equivalent  to  God, 
in  whose  name  the  demand  was  made.  But  if  we  suppose  with  some 
that  he  was  an  acquaintance,  or  still  further,  that  a  previous  arrange- 
ment had  been  made  with  him,  the  Lord  will  rather  be  a  personal 
description  of  our  Saviour  as  the  well-known  teacher,  whose  disciples 
were  the  bearers  of  the  message.     Even  on  this  latter  supposition, 


MARK  11,  3.  4.  5.  299 


nowcver,  which  has  no  foundation  in  the  text  or  context,  there  is  evi- 
dence of  superhuman  foresight  in  our  Lord's  exact  description  of  the 
incidents  as  they  occurred. 

4.  And  tliey  went  their  way,  and  fonnd  the  colt  tied 
by  the  door  without,  in  a  place  where  two  ways  met,  and 
they  loose  him. 

While  the  parallel  accounts  simply  state  that  the  disciples  went 
and  did  (Matt.  21,  6)  and  found  (Luke  19,  32),  as  he  had  told  them, 
Mark  describes  particularly  where  they  found  the  colt  tied,  namely, 
l)y  the  door  icitliout^  i.  e.  just  outside  of  the  house  and  at  the  very  door, 
no  doubt  that  of  its  proprietor,  who  had  probably  just  used  or  was 
about  to  use  it.  But  Mark  describes  the  spot  still  more  precisel}'',  as 
being  on  the  way  rounds  i.  e.  probably  the  road  which  wound  around 
the  village,  though  the  Greek  word  is  applied  in  the  classics  to  the 
streets  of  towns,  which  in  ancient  times,  and  in  the  east  especially, 
were  seldom  straight.  But  as  this  was  an  inconsiderable  hamlet,  of 
which  no  trace  now  remains,  and  which  had  probably  but  one  street, 
it  seems  better  to  explain  the  term,  which  occurs  only  here  in  the  New 
Testament,  according  to  its  etymology,  as  meaning  the  highway  upon 
which  the  village  stood,  and  by  which  it  was  wholly  or  partially  sur- 
rounded. A  place  lohere  tico  ways  met  is  a  paraphrase,  not  of  the  origi- 
nal {diJ.(f)68ov),  but  of  the  Vulgate  version  (bivio.)  The  very  obscurity 
of  this  description  serves  to  show  that  it  is  not  a  subsequent  embel- 
lishment, but  the  vivid  recollection  of  an  eye-witness,  perhaps  Peter, 
who  is  thought  bj''  some  to  have  been  sent  with  John  upon  this  errand, 
as  we  know  (from  Luke  22,  8)  that  he  was  upon  another,  four  days 
later,  where  Mark  (14,  13)  as  here  speaks  only  in  the  general  of  "two 
disciples."  We7it  their  way,  as  usual,  means  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  icejit  away.  Loose  Mm,  or  untie,  unfasten  it,  the  colt,  which  in 
Greek  is  masculine.  The  present  tense  is  not  used  here  precisely  as  it 
is  in  the  preceding  verse,  but  has  the  graphic  force,  of  which  we  have 
already  met  with  numerous  examples. 

5.  And  certain  of  them  that  stood  there  said  unto 
them,  What  do  ye,  loosing  the  colt  ? 

And  some  of  those  standing  there,  the  owners  of  the  colt  (Luke  1 9, 
^3)  or  members  of  his  family.  What  are  you  doing,  or  why  are  you 
doing  {this),  the  first  word  (ri),  although  properly  a  neuter  pronoun, 
being  often  used  as  an  adverb  of  interrogation  (e.  g.  2,  7.  9.  24.  4,  40. 
5.  35.  39.  8, 12.  17.  10, 18.)  What  do  ye  loosing  the  colt  ?  is  not  an 
English  idiom,  though  obviously  equivalent  to  saying,  what  do  you 
mean  by  thus  unfastening  or  untying  him  ?  Necessarily  implied, 
though  not  expressed,  is  the  demand  by  what  right  or  authorit}''  they 
did  so. 


300  MARK  11,  6.  7. 

6.  And  they  said  unto  them  even  as  Jesns  had  com- 
manded, and  they  let  them  go. 

Even  as,  just  as.  the  Greek  word  (Ka&cos),  like  these  English 
phrases,  being  a  strengthened  or  intensive  compound  of  the  common 
particle  of  comparison  (cos),  peculiar  to  the  later  Greek.  Jesus  com- 
manded, as  recorded  in  v.  3,  of  which  the  very  words  are  repeated  here 
by  Luke  (19,  S4.)  Let  them  go,  or  let  them  alone,  allowed  them  to  do 
what  they  were  doing,  the  verb  so  often  rendered  let  or  suffe7'  (as  in 
1,  34.  5,  19.  7,  12.  27.  10,  14),  sometimes  forgive  (as  in  2,  5.  9.  10.  3, 
28.  4, 12,  and  in  v.  25.  26  below),  and  sometimes  leave  or  forsalce  (as 
in  1, 18.  20.  31.  8, 13.  10,  28.  29.)  The  verb  go  is  not  expressed  in 
Greek,  unless  it  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the  inseparable  phrase  to  let  go. 

7.  And  they  brought  the  colt  to  Jesus,  and  cast  their 
garments  on  him,  and  he  sat  upon  him. 

Omitting  the  circumstance,  which  IMatthew,  with  his  usual  accuracy 
as  to  numbers  (see  above,  5,  2.  10,  35.  4G)  states  distinctly,  to  wit,  that 
the  mother  of  the  colt  went  with  it  (IMatt.  21.  7),  Mark  and  Luke  (19. 
35)  speak  only  of  the  colt  itself,  as  the  animal  for  which  Jesus  sent, 
and  upon  which  he  was  to  ride.  Cast  tlieir  garments,  i.  e.  their  loose 
outer  garments,  cloaks  or  mantles  (see  above,  on  5,  28.  30.  G,  56.  9,  3. 
10,  50)  on  Mm  (or  it.  i.  e.  upon  the  colt),  as  a  saddle  or  a  cushion.  If 
the  subject  of  the  sentence  is  the  same  as  in  the  first  clause,  this  must 
be  regarded  as  the  act  of  the  two  disciples.  He  sat  wpon  him,  i.  e.  on 
the  colt  or  j'oung  ass.  Mark  and  Luke  omit  or  take  for  granted 
what  is  stated  expressly  both  by  John  (12,  14.  15)  and  Matthew  (21, 
4.  5).  that  this  was  in  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy  of  Zechariah  (9,  9), 
which  describes  the  King  of  Ziou  as  coming  to  her  mounted  on  an  ass 
and  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass,  two  parallel  descriptions  of  the  same  thing. 
According  to  the  ancient  oriental  custom,  the  ass  and  the  mule  were  used 
by  persons  of  the  highest  rank  for  ordinary  riding  and  on  state  occa- 
sions (see  Gen.  22,  3.  Num.  22,  30.  Josh.  15, 18.  l^Sam.  25,  23.  2  Sara. 
13, 29.  18.  9.  1  Kings  1,  33.  38.  44),  while  the  horse  mentioned  in  the 
scriptures  is  invariabl}^  the  war-horse  (see  Ex.  15,  21.  Judg.  5,22,  Ps. 
33, 17.  76,  6.  147, 10.  Prov.  21,  31.  Jer.  8,  6.  Zcch.  10,  3.)  By  describ- 
ing the  Messiah  therefore  as  thus  mounted,  Zechariah  represents  him 
as  a  peaceful  king ;  and  by  actually  thus  appearing,  Christ  appropriates 
the  passage  to  himself  and  claims  to  be  the  peaceful  sovereign  there  de- 
scribed. This  obvious  reference  to  a  well-known  prophecy,  which  any 
Jew  would  instantly  detect  and  undi^rstand.  removes  a  portion  of  those 
ludicrous  associations,  which  are  commonly  connected  with  the  animal 
here  mentioned,  an  effect  which  is  completed  by  the  well-known  fact, 
suggested  by  the  roj^il  usage  just  referred  to,  that  tlie  oriental  ass  is  a 
less  iirnoble  beast  than  the  one  which  bears  the  same  name  (4se\vliere. 

8.  And  many  spread  tlieir  garments  \\\  the  AViiy  ;  and 


MARK  11,  8.  9.  301 


others  cut  down  branches  off  the  trees,  and  strewed  (them) 
in  the  way. 

Responding  to  this  claim,  expressed  in  act  though  not  in  word,  the 
people  recognize  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah,  spreading  their  (outer)  gar- 
ments in  (or  on)  the  road,  an  ancient  practice  at  the  proclamation  of  new 
sovereigns.  (Compare  2  Kings  9, 13.)  While  some  thus  did  him  homage, 
others  signified  the  same  thing  in  a  still  more  striking  and  impressive 
manner,  by  cutting  thick  boughs  from  the  trees  and  spreading  them 
before  him,  so  as  to  form  a  kind  of  bed  or  carpet  over  which  he  rode. 
The  Greek  word  translated  branches  is  not  the  one  commonly  emploj^ed 
in  that  sense  and  here  used  by  Matthew  (21, 8),  but  according  to  the 
common  text  a  form  not  used  in  classic  Greek  (aroi^adas).  nor 
found  in  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  (B.  D.  E.  G.),  on  whose  au- 
thority the  latest  critics  have  expunged  one  letter,  so  as  to  produce  a 
form  (aTtiSadas)  familiar  to  the  best  Greek  writers,  and  denoting  beds 
or  mattresses  made  of  rushes,  leaves,  or  twigs.  As  here  applied  it 
does  not  mean  the  boughs  or  branches,  as  such,  but  the  kind  of  bed  or 
cushion  which  they  formed  when  spread  upon  the  ground,  thus  answer- 
ing the  same  purpose  with  the  garments  before  mentioned.  This 
accounts  for  the  two  acts  being  carefully  assigned  to  different  parties, 
those  who  could  not  or  would  not  use  their  clothes  in  this  way  substi- 
tuting branches  from  the  trees,  or  according  to  another  reading,  fro/n 
the  Jields,  into  which  they  are  then  described  as  going  from  the  high- 
way, to  procure  materials  for  this  strange  but  interesting  ceremonial. 

9.  And  they  that  went  before  and  they  that  followed 
cried,  saying,  Hosanna !  blessed  (is)  he  that  cometli  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord. 

Thus  far  the  proclamation  of  the  new  king  and  his  public  recogni- 
tion had  been  only  by  significant  actions  upon  his  part  and  that  of  his 
attendants.  But  now  it  was  to  break  forth  into  language,  in  a  sort  of 
alternate  or  responsive  chorus,  uttered  in  succession  by  the  crowd 
which  went  before  and  that  which  followed  Jesus,  the  distinct  mention 
of  which,  both  by  Mark  and  Matthew  (21,  9),  was  probably  intended  to 
suggest  some  such  antiphony,  the  rather  as  it  seems  to  have  been  prac- 
tised in  the  Jewish  worship  and  particularly  in  the  chanting  of  the  Psalms 
from  which  the  particular  passage  sung  on  this  occasion  was  selected, 
being  still  found  in  Ps.  118,  25.  26.  Hosanna  is  a  Greek  modification 
or  corruption  of  a  Hebrew  phrase  occurring  in  that  passage  and 
strictly  meaning  save  now  (or  we  pray  thee),  but  here  used  as  a  joyful 
acclamation  or  acknowledgment  that  the  salvation  so  long  promised 
was  now  come.  It  is  no  fortuitous  coincidence,  that  this  same  Hebrew 
verb  is  the  etymon  or  root  of  the  name  Jesus,  borne  by  him  who  came 
to  save  his  people  from  their  sins  (Matt.  1,21.)  Blessed,  i.  e.  praised, 
exalted,  with  divine  and  royal  honours.  The  (one)  coining,  or  the  com- 
ing (one),  a  beautiful  description  of  the  gieat  deliverer  so  long  ex- 


302  MARK  11,  9.  10.  11. 

pectedj  and  to  whom  this  psalm  is  obviously  applicable,  either  directly 
as  its  proper  theme,  or  indirectly  as  the  person  typified  and  repre- 
sented by  the  ancient  temple,  the  restoration  of  which  after  the  return 
from  Ballon  this  psalm,  according  to  some  eminent  interpreters,  was 
originally  meant  to  celebrate.  According  to  the  present  Jewish  prac- 
tice and  tradition,  it  also  formed  part  of  the  series  of  psalms  sung  at  the 
passover,  which  makes  it  still  more  seasonable  here,  as  the  multitude 
who  sang  it  were  composed,  at  least  in  part,  of  strangers  who  had 
come  up  to  observe  that  festival  (see  above,  on  10, 1.  46.) 

10.  Blessed  (be)  the  Jvingdom  of  our  father  David, 
that  Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Hosanna  in  the 
highest ! 

To  this  ancient  and  inspired  theme  the  people  add  a  variation  of 
their  own,  or  possibly  one  furnished  by  the  liturgical  forms  which  had 
been  gradually  coming  into  use  for  ages,  and  though  no  more  authori- 
tative than  the  other  traditions  of  the  elders,  often,  as  in  this  case. 
perfectly  accordant  with  the  form  and  spirit  of  the  divine  patterns 
upon  which  they  had  been  modelled.  The  latest  critics  omit  the  repe- 
tition of  the  words,  in  the  name  of  the  Lovely  reading.  Messed  is  the 
coming  Mngdom  of  our  father  Damd^  who  is  so  named  as  the  founder 
of  the  theocratic  monarch}'-,  and  the  most  conspicuous  representative 
of  the  Messiah's  royalty.  Hosanna  in  the  highest  has  been  variously 
understood  as  meaning  in  the  highest  strains,  or  in  the  highest  places, 
i.  e.  heaven,  which  agam  may  either  be  a  call  upon  the  heavenly  host 
to  join  in  these  exulting  acclamations,  or  a  direct  ascription  of  the  sav- 
ing influences  rejoiced  in  to  the  highest  source,  i.  e.  to  God  himself. 

11.  And  Jesus  entered  into  Jerusalem,  and  into  the 
temple  ;  and  when  he  had  looked  round  about  upon  all 
tilings,  and  now  the  even-tide  was  come,  he  went  out  unto 
Bethany,  with  the  twelve. 

Omitting  some  particulars  of  this  triumphal  entrance,  which  have 
been  preserved  by  Luke  (19,  39-44)  and  John  (12,  10-19)  but  did  not 
fall  within  the  scope  of  his  own  narrative,  Mark  hastens  to  record  his 
arrival  at  the  city  and  the  temple,  here  denoted  by  a  Greek  word 
meaning  sacred,  and  applied  to  the  whole  enclosure  with  its  courts  and 
buildings,  as  distinguished  from  the  sacred  edifice  or  temple,  properly 
so  called,  and  designated  by  a  difibrent  word  (the  one  employed  below 
in  14,  58.  15, 29.  38.)  And  having  loolced  around^  surveyed  the  temple, 
not  from  idle  curiosity,  nor  as  a  means  of  gaining  information,  but  as  a 
tacit  assertion  of  his  own  authority,  an  act  by  which  he  took  posses- 
sion, as  it  were,  of  his  Father's  house  and  claimed  dominion  over  it,  an 
attitude  maintained  by  him  throughout  this  final  visit  to  the  Holy 
City.  Eventide  (an  old  English  word  for  evening-time)  already  being 
the  hour,  i.  e.  the  time  of  day  being  late  or  far  advanced  towards  eve- 


MARK  11,  11.  12.  13.  303 

ning.  This  may  seem  to  designate  the  time  of  his  arrival ;  but  the 
usage  of  the  Greek  word  for  already  rather  connects  it  with  the  time 
of  his  departure,  as  expressed  correctly  although  not  precisely  in  -the 
common  version.  He  icent  out  (from  the  city  and  the  temple)  to  (or 
into)  Bethany^  the  village  mentioned  in  the  first  verse  of  this  chapter, 
where  he  lodged  or  spent  the  nights  of  this  last  visit,  no  doubt  at  the 
house  of  Lazarus  or  that  of  Simon  (see  below,  on  v.  19,  and  compare 
Luke  21,  37.  38.)  With  the  twelve,  now  in  constant  attendance  on  him, 
until  the  desertion  of  Judas  (see  below,  on  14,  10)  and  the  subsequent 
dispersion  of  the  rest  (see  below,  on  14,  50.)  .^ 

12.  And  on  the  morrow,  when  they  were  come  from 
Bethany,  he  was  hungry. 

INIark  appears  to  have  recorded  the  occurrences  of  this  week  with 
remarkable  precision,  while  jNIatthew,  as  in  many  other  cases,  some- 
times puts  together  things  which  are  akin,  with  less  regard  to  chrono- 
logical order  than  to  mutual  affinit}^  (see  below,  on  v.  14.)  On  the 
morrow  (or  the  next  day,  i.  e.  after  his  triumphal  entrance)  they  com- 
ing out  from  Bethany  (or  having  set  out  from  that  village  to  Jerusa- 
lem) he  hungered  (or  teas  hungry)^  having  probably  partaken  of  no 
food  that  morning,  either  because  they  set  out  very  early,  or  because 
the  hunger  was  to  bear  a  part  in  the  following  symbolical  instruction. 
That  this  was  a  simulated  hunger,  is  not  only  an  unworthy  and  irrev- 
erent but  a  perfectly  gratuitous  assumption,  as  our  Lord,  by  his  incar- 
nation, shared  in  all  the  innocent  infirmities  of  human  nature.  It 
should  also  be  observed,  that  though  the  hunger  of  our  Lord  alone  is 
mentioned,  it  necessarily  implies  that  of  his  followers,  who  would 
thcreb}'  be  prepared  to  feel  their  disappointment  the  more  sensibly,  and 
better  to  appreciate  the  great  truth  symbolized  by  these  familiar  inci- 
dents, to  wit,  the  failure  of  the  chosen  race  to  answer  the  great  end  for 
which  they  had  been  set  apart,  and  as  it  were  to  meet  the  divine  ex- 
pectations (compare  Isai.  5, 1-4.) 

13.  And  seeing  a  fig-tree  afar  off,  having  leaves,  he 
came,  if  haply  he  might  find  any  tiling  thereon  ;  and 
when  he  came  to  it,  he  found  nothing  but  leaves,  for  the 
time  of  figs  was  not  (yet). 

Afar  ojf]  or  v^i\\Qvfrom  afar,  the  expression  having  reference  not 
so  much  to  the  position  of  the  tree  as  to  the  point  of  observation. 
Having  leaves,  which  in  the  fig-tree  are  said  to  be  developed  later  than 
the  fruit,  and  therefore  presuppose  it.  Came  if,  an  elliptical  but  per- 
fectly intelligible  phrase,  meaning,  came  to  see  or  to  determine,  not  for 
his  own  information  but  for  that  of  his  disciples.  Hiply,  perhaps,  in 
Greek  a  particle  denoting  mere  contingency  or  doubt  as  to  the  issue 
not  in  his  mind,  but  to  the  view  of  others.  And  coming  to  it,  literally, 
n2J0?i  it,  that  is.  up  to  it,  reaching  it  after  having  seen  it  so  long  at  a 


304  ■  MARK  11,  13.  14. 

distance.  For  it  was  not  the  time  (or  season)  of  Jigs,  and  therefore  the 
developement  of  leaves  was  premature  and  unnatural,  affordmg  promise 
of  what  was  not  to  be  realized.  This  simple  explanation,  given  by 
;Mark  himself,  does  away  with  the  necessity  of  all  discussion,  as  to  the 
different  periods  at  which  figs  ripen,  or  the  possibility  of  some  remain- 
ing on  the  tree  all  winter.  The  fact,  as  Mark  records  it  more  distinctly, 
but  in  perfect  consistency  with  Matthew  (21, 19),  is  that  a  solitary  fig- 
tree  by  the  wayside  had  out  of  season  put  forth  leaves  without  fruit, 
and  our  Lord  selects  this  premature  and  barren  germination  as  a  type 
or  emblem  of  the  chosen  people,  with  their  high  professions  and  their 
ritual  formality,  but  destitute  of  those  fruits  of  righteousness,  without 
which  these  external  forms  were  worse  than  useless.  This  idea  had  al- 
ready been  embodied  by  our  Saviour  in  a  parable  (Luke  13,  C-9),  and 
thereby  made  familiar  to  the  minds  of  his  disciiDles,  who  would  at  once 
understand  his  coming  hungry  to  the  tree  as  a  significant  act,  answer- 
ing to  that  of  the  owner  of  the  vineyard,  who  came  three  years  seeking 
fruit  and  finding  none  (Luke  13,  7),  especially  if  (as  some  suppose)  the 
parable  was  uttered  at  the  same  time,  although  placed  by  many  har- 
monists much  further  back. 

14.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  it,  'No  man 
eat  fruit  of  thee  liereafter  for  ever.  And  his  disciples 
heard  (it). 

And  answering,  orally  responding  to  the  tacit  and  unconscious  re- 
fusal of  the  tree  to  keep  the  promise  of  its  foliage.  No  longer,  imply- 
ing that  it  had  once  borne  fruit,  or,  as  the  Greek  particle  may  be  ex- 
plained consistently  with  usage,  not  hereafter,  never.  Of  (or  froni) 
thee  let  any  one  (literally,  no  one,  the  idiomatic  double  negative,  en- 
hancing the  negation)  eat  fruit.  This  is  a  simple  calm  command,  the 
idea  of  a  passionate  vindictive  imprecation  being  founded  wholl}'-  on  the 
word  curse  used  by  the  disciples  (see  below,  on  v.  21),  and  eagerly 
caught  up  by  the  infidel  interpreter,  either  as  a  pretext  for  accusing 
Christ  of  selfish  anger  at  his  disappointment  in  not  finding  figs,  or  of 
irrational  displeasure  at  an  inanimate  and  senseless  object.  This  very 
circumstance  ought  to  have  sufficed  to  show  that  the  whole  transaction 
was  judicial  and  symbolical,  and  no  more  chargeable  with  spite  or  pas- 
sion than  the  similar  command  which  goes  forth  against  every  tree  or 
even  weed  that  withers.  And  Jiis  disciples  heard,  or  rather,  thei/  icere 
hearing,  listening,  when  he  thus  addressed  the  fig-tree,  an  expression 
which  connects  the  narrative  before  us  with  its  sequel,  afterwards  re- 
corded in  its  proper  chronological  connection  (see  below,  on  vs.  20.  21), 
although  added  here  immediately  by  Matthew  (21,  20),  so  as  to  com- 
plete the  narrative  at  once,  a  striking  instance  of  the  difference  already 
hinted  at  between  the  two  evangelists,  especially  in  this  part  of  the  his- 
tory (see  above,  on  v.  12.) 

15.  And   tliey   come   to    Jerusalem,  and  Jesus  went 


MAKK  11,  15.  305 

into  the  temple,  and  began  to  cast  out  tliem  tliat  sold  and 
bonglit  in  the  temple,  and  overthrew  the  tables  of  the 
money-changers,  and  the  seats  of  them  that  sold  doves. 

On  his  second  visit  to  the  temple  after  this  arrival  at  Jerusalem,  he 
performs  a  more  decisive  act  of  Messianic  power,  involving  a  direct 
claim,  although  not  expressed  in  words,  to  that  high  character  or  office. 
This  was  the  purgation  of  the  temple,  by  breaking  up  the  market  held 
there,  driving  out  the  traders,  and  prohibiting  all  traffic,  and  all  other 
profanation  of  the  consecrated  area  to  worldly  uses.  A  similar  pro- 
ceeding is  described  by  John  (2, 1 1-lC),  as  having  taken  place  at  the 
first  passover  after  the  commencement  of  his  public  ministry.  The 
attempt  to  identify  these  two  purgations  as  the  same  transaction,  but 
referred  by  tradition  to  two  different  dates,  has  no  foundation  but  the 
alleged  improbability  that  such  an  act  would  be  repeated,  or  that  if  re- 
peated, no  one  of  the  gospels  should  record  both,  as  in  the.  case  of  the 
miraculous  feeding,  first  of  five  and  afterwards  of  four  thousand  (see 
above,  on  8, 1-9.)  Both  these  objections,  however,  admit  of  a  prompt 
and  satisfactory  solution.  The  purgation  of  the  temple  being  intended, 
not  to  produce  any  permanent  effect,  but  simply  to  assert  our  Lord's 
authority,  was  perfectly  appropriate  both  at  the  commencement  and 
the  close  of  his  official  life.  But  the  first  took  place  before  the  opening 
of  his  Galilean  ministry,  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  first  three  gos- 
pels. This  accounts  for  their  recording  only  the  second,  whereas  John 
records  the  first  for  a  twofold  reason  ;  first,  because  he  wrote  to  sup- 
plement the  others  ;  secondly,  because  he  pays  particular  attention  to 
the  first  stage  or  period  of  Christ's  work  in  Judea,  before  the  impris- 
onment of  John  had  led  him  to  withdraw  to  Galilee  (see  above,  on  1, 
14.)  The  abuse  or  nuisance  thus  reformed  had  gradually  grown  up 
on  the  pretext  of  providing  for  the  wants  of  worshippers,  especially  of 
strangers,  by  supplying  them  with  victims  for  the  altar  (oxen,  sheep, 
and  doves  or  pigeons),  and  with  Jewish  coin  to  pay  their  tribute  to  the 
temple-treasury,  which  was  given  in  exchange  for  Greek  and  Roman 
money.  Thus  the  outer  court  (often  called  the  court  of  the  Gentiles) 
had  been  partially  transformed  into  a  cattle-market,  and  partially  oc- 
cupied by  brokers  or  exchangers  with  their  banks  or  money- tables. 
These  he  now  casts  out^  or  drives  out  with  authority,  perhaps  by  force, 
as  in  the  former  instance  (John  2, 15.)  The  submission  of  the  people 
to  this  discipline  requires  no  explanation,  as  its  purpose  was  symbol- 
ical not  practical,  and  nothing  more  was  needed  than  a  momentary  ex- 
ercise of  power,  even  though  succeeded  by  an  immediate  repetition  of 
the  offence.  Still  more  unnecessary  is  it  to  assume  that  during  the 
whole  interval  between  the  two  purgations  the  temple  had  been  free 
from  this  profane  intrusion,  which  was  now  renewed,  perhaps  with  the 
connivance  of  the  priests  themselves,  in  opposition  to  the  claims  of  him 
who  had  abated  it.  The  probability  rather  is,  that  the  inveterate  cus- 
tom had  been  interrupted  only  for  a  few  days  or  hours,  and  had  then 
be<3n  restored  and  continued,  till  it  was  again  interrupted  in  the  case 
before  us. 


306  •  MARK  11,  16.  17. 


16.  And  would  not  suffer  that  any  man  should  carry 
(any)  vessel  through  the  temple. 

Would  not  silver,  literally  did  not  suffer^  or  permit  (the  same  verb 
that  occurs  above  in  v.  6),  that  any  one  (not  man)  should  carry  a  (not 
any)  vessel  (implement  or  utensil),  a  word  of  wider  import  than  the 
English  one,  and  nearly  corresponding  to  the  modern  use  of  article. 
Through  tJie  temi^le^  i.  e.  through  the  sacred  enclosure,  which  had 
probably  become  a  thoroughfare  or  passage  from  one  part  of  the  city  to 
another.  The  coexistence  of  such  profanation,  not  expressly  forbidden 
b}^  the  law,  but  in  flagrant  opposition  to  its  spirit,  with  punctilious 
attention  both  to  commanded  and  traditional  observances,  illustrates 
^QVY  clearly  the  hollowness  and  emptiness  of  pharisaical  religion.  That 
our  Lord  did  not  suffer  or  permit  the  practice  here  referred  to,  may  be 
either  understood  to  mean  that  he  forbade  it  and  denounced  it,  or  more 
strictly  that  he  actually  put  an  end  to  it,  for  the  time  being,  by  the 
powerful  authority  and  influence  arising  from  his  teaching  and  his 
miracles. 

17.  And  he  taught,  saying  unto  them,  Is  it  not  writ- 
ten. My  house  shall  be  called  of  all  nations  the  house  of 
prayer  %  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  thieves. 

And  he  taught^  i.  e.  declared  in  words  what  he  had  thus  affirmed 
in  act,  and  added  force  to  his  doctrine  by  clothing  it  in  familiar  words 
of  prophecy.  Has  it  not  l>een  loritten^  has  it  not  been  long  on  record, 
an  expressive  application  of  the  perfect  passive,  which  we  have  already 
met  with  more  than  once  in  this  book.  (See  above,  on  1,  2.  7,  6.  9, 12. 13.) 
The  reference  is  to  two  distinct  prophetic  utterances,  one  of  Isaiah  (56, 
7),  and  one  of  Jeremiah  (7,  11),  here  combined  as  relating  to  the  same 
thing  or  admitting  of  the  same  application.  The  passage  in  Isaiah  is  a 
clear  prediction  of  the  future  enlargement  of  the  Church,  when  all  dis- 
tinctions, national  and  personal,  should  cease,  and  the  Gentiles  be  ad- 
mitted to  equality  of  privileges  with  the  Jews.  My  Jiouse,  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem,  considered  as  the  earthly  residence  of  God  and  the 
asylum  of  his  people.  Shall  he  called^  i.  e.  truly  called,  a  common  lie- 
brew  idiom  equivalent  to  saying,  it  shall  l)e.  The  main  idea  in  the 
original  connection  is,  that  it  should  be  a  house  of  prayer  hereafter  not 
for  one  but  for  all  nations.  That  our  Lord  had  reference  chiefly  to 
the  fact,  presupposed  or  incidentally  stated,  of  its  being  called  a  house 
of  prayer,  and  not  to  its  ultimate  extension  to  all  nations,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  circumstance  that  the  latter  clause  is  left  out  both 
by  Luke  (19,  40)  and  Matthew  (21,  13),  although  Mark  inserts  it  to 
complete  the  sentence.  The  whole  prediction  could  be  verified  only 
after  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  when  the  house  of  God,  even  upon 
earth,  ceased  to  be  a  limited  locality,  and  became  coextensive  with  the 
church  in  its  enlargement  and  diff'usion.  But  the  part  of  the  sentence 
which  our  Saviour  quoted  was  appropriate,  even  to  the  ancient  temple, 
while  the  words  from  Jeremiah  related  originally  to  it,  as  profaned  by 


MARK   11,  17.  18.  19.  307 

wicked  Jews  in  ancient  times.  A  den,  cave,  cavern,  often  the  resort 
of  thieves,  or  rather  robbers,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  version  of  Jer. 
7,  11.  He  is  not  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  this  outward  dese- 
cration of  the  temple  was  the  worst  abuse  existing,  or  the  only  one 
intended  in  the  prophecy,  but  merely  that  it  served  as  a  type  or  sym- 
bol of  still  worse  corruptions,  just  as  his  expulsion  of  the  traders 
represented  a  more  general  and  sweeping  reformation  of  abuses. 

18.  And  the  scribes  and  chief  priests  heard  (it),  and 
sought  how  they  might  destroy  him  ;  for  they  feared  him, 
because  all  the  people  was  astonished  at  his  doctrine. 

These  new  and  startling  acts  of  authority  were  rightly  understood 
by  the  chiefs  of  the  theocracy,  not  as  the  wild  deeds  of  a  zealot  imitat- 
ing Phineas  in  his  lawless  yet  heroic  zeal  for  God,  of  which  fanaticism 
there  were  many  instances  in  that  day  (see  above,  on  3,  18),  but  as  un- 
ambiguous assertions  of  a  higher  and  more  permanent  power,  to  wit, 
that  of  the  Messiah  as  the  great  reformer,  so  described  by  Isaiah 
(4,  4)  and  by  Malachi  (3,  3.  4,  1),  and  as  such  to  be  preceded  by  the 
great  reforming  prophet  of  the  old  economy  (see  above,  on  1,  2.  9,  4. 
11.)  Aware  that  the  establishment  of  these  pretensions  would  be 
fatal  to  their  own  official  influence,  the  scribes  and  chief  priests,  as  the 
leading  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  or  national  council,  no  longer  doubted 
whether  he  must  be  destr03'ed,  but  how,  by  what  means,  it  could  be 
effected.  For  they  feared  Mm.  not  with  a  mere  personal  alarm,  but  as 
the  representatives  of  Israel,  on  account  of  the  popular  influence  already 
possessed  by  him,  because  the  croicd,  the  multitude,  perhaps  used  con- 
temptuously in  the  sense  of  rabble,  loas  astonished.^  struck  with  admi- 
ration and  surprise,  at  his  doctrine,  i.  e.  at  his  mode  of  teaching  or  of 
setting  forth  his  claims  as  a  teacher  come  from  God,  to  wit,  by  mira- 
cles as  well  as  wisdom.     (See  above,  on  1,  22.  27.  4,  2.)       » 

19.  And  when  even  was  come,  he  went  out  of  the 

city.  ^ 

This  verse  distinctly  marks  the  close  of  a  second  day,  exactly  cor- 
responding to  the  one  in  v.  11,  and  implying  what  is  formally  affirmed 
by  Luke  (21,  37),  that  during  this  last  week  his  days  were  spent  in 
teaching  in  the  temple,  and  his  nights  upon  the  mount  of  Olives,  i.  e. 
at  Bethany,  which  was  on  its  eastern  slope ;  unless  the  terms  employed 
by  Luke  be  intended  to  suggest  the  idea,  that  at  least  a  part  of  these 
nights  was  employed  in  prayer  amidst  the  solitudes  of  Olivet,  an  ex- 
planation perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  fact  that  to  this  evangelist  we 
are  especially  indebted  for  the  scanty  knowledge  we  possess  of  the 
Saviour's  habits  of  devotion. 

20.  And  in  the  morning,  as  they  passed  by,  they  saw 
the  Hg-tree  dried  up  from  the  roots. 


308  MARK  11,  20.  21. 

Another  interesting  circumstance,  preserved  by  Luke  (21,  38),  and 
happily  illustrative  of  what  Mark  here  records,  is  the  thronging  of  the 
people  to  the  temple  early  in  the  morning  for  the  purpose  of  hearing 
him.  To  gratify  this  salutary  craving  for  instruction,  we  find  him 
upon  both  these  days  (compare  Matt.  21,  18)  returning  early  to  the 
city.  Passing  along^  or  by  the  same  road  as  on  the  day  before,  they 
now  behold  the  fig-tree,  then  conspicuous  afar  by  its  luxuriant  foliage, 
completely  blasted,  withered,  dried  up,  from  its  very  roots.  It  is  not 
said  that  the  change  took  place  at  this  time,  but  that  they  now  ob- 
served it,  having  had  no  other  opportunity  of  doing  so,  as  their  inter- 
mediate return  to  Bethany  took  place  at  night  (v.  19.)  There  is 
nothing  in  jMark's  language  to  forbid  the  supposition  that  the  wither- 
ing took  place  as  soon  as  they  had  turned  their  backs,  and  therefore 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  words  of  Matthew  (21,  19),  that  the  fig- 
tree  was  dried  up  or  withered  presently^  i.  e.  in  modern  English,  in- 
stantaneously, upon  the  spot.  The  attempt  to  treat  this  as  a  contra- 
diction, although  made  by  German  writers  of  great  eminence,  would 
be  regarded  as  absurd  in  any  Anglo-saxon  jury -room  or  court  of 
justice. 

21.  And  Peter,  calling  to  remembrance,  saitli  unto  liim, 
Master,  behold,  the  fig-tree  which  thou  cursedst  is  with- 
ered away. 

And  Peter  (from  whom  Mark  may  have  derived  this  incident), 
calling  to  remenibrance^  or,  without  departing  from  the  passive  form 
of  the  original,  heing  reminded^  put  in  mind,  by  what  he  saw,  of  what 
he  heard  the  day  before,  says  to  Mm,  Palbi,  the  identical  expression 
here  preserved  by  Mark  (as  in  10,  51),  but  not  perceptible  in  the 
translation  either  here  or  in  9,  45  above  and  14,  45  below,  though  it  is 
not  easy  to  imagine  why  it  was  not  left  unaltered  in  these  places,  as  so 
many  other  Aramaic  words  are  elsewhere,  and  as  this  very  title  is  re- 
peatedly in  John  (1,38.  39.  3,2.  26.  G,  25)  and  Matthew  (23,  7.  8.) 
This  want  of  uniformity  in  rendering  the  same  word,  even  where  the 
sense  and  the  connection  are  identical,  although  probabl}'-  occasioned 
by  the  diversity  of  hands  employed  upon  the  version,  is  to  be  regretted, 
not  as  a  violation  or  concealment  of  the  truth,  but  as  depriving  the 
unlearned  reader  of  enjoyments  and  advantages,  however  slight,  pos- 
sessed by  students  of  the  Greek  text.  The  remedy  for  this  and  other 
errors  of  the  same  kind  should  be  sought,  not  in  endless  emendation 
of  the  printed  text,  which  would  do  incomparably  greater  harm  than 
good,  but  by  the  faithful  exposition  of  the  words  of  inspiration,  as  a 
necessary  part  of  ministerial  duty.  Belwld^  lo,  see,  a  word  expressive 
of  his  own  surprise,  and  at  the  same  time  calling  the  attention  of  his 
master  to  the  object  which  occasioned  it,  as  in  our  familiar  phrases, 
sec  here,  look  here  !  It  is  nearly  equivalent  to  saying,  what  is  this  ? 
or  what  does  this  mean  ?  and  implies  what  is  expressed  by  iMatthew 
(21,  20),  an  inquiry  how  it  could  have  happened,  i.  e.  how  the  blasting 
could  have  taken  place  so  soon.     Which  thou  didst  curse,  the  only 


MARK  11,  21.  22.  SO'J 

place  in  either  gospel  where  this  miracle  is  so  described,  but  from 
which  it  has  come  to  be  its  standing  designation  among  preachers  and 
interpreters.  It  might  perhaps  be  treated  as  a  hasty  word  of  Peter, 
no  more  infallible  than  several  others  left  on  record  (for  example,  those 
in  8,  32.  9,  5),  and  uttered  when  he  knew  not  what  to  say  nor  even 
what  he  said  (9,  G.)  But  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the  word  is  per- 
fectly appropriate,  to  wit,  that  of  a  judicial  sentence,  by  wliich  evil  is 
denounced  on  a  deserving  object  and  by  competent  authority,  the  only 
sense  in  which  God  can  be  said  to  curse  his  creatures,  and  in  which 
too  every  human  judge  may  no  less  truly  be  described  as  cursing  those 
whom  he  condemns  to  death  or  any  other  punishment.  Cursing  is 
sinful  when  it  is  not  judicial  or  not  just,  but  merely  passionate  or 
wanton.  It  is  asked,  however,  how  a  curse  could  have  either  of  the 
qualities  just  mentioned,  when  pronounced  upon  a  senseless  and  inan- 
imate object.  This  has  been  made  the  ground  of  much  sentimental 
lamentation,  chiefly  on  the  part  of  those  who  love  to  pick  flaws  in  the 
conduct  of  the  blessed  Saviour.  The  reply  to  such  objections  is  the 
plain  one,  that  the  action  was  symbolical,  the  fig-tree  representing  the 
unfaithful  and  unfruitful  Israel,  whose  leaves  were  put  forth  in  ad- 
vance of  other  nations,  but  without  the  fruit  which  ought  to  have 
attended  or  preceded  them,  and  in  default  of  which  perpetual  barren- 
ness was  to  be  the  condign  punishment  of  barrenness  itself.  To  the 
still  more  trivial  objection,  founded  on  the  loss  incurred  by  the  pro- 
prietor, some  reply  that  its  unfruitfulness  already  showed  it  to  be  worth- 
less ;  others  that  the  right  here  exercised  was  just  the  same  with  that 
by  which  not  only  single  trees  but  whole  plantations  and  whole  harvests 
are  continually  blasted.  The  difiiculty  can  be  felt  by  none  but  those 
who  question  the  divinity  of  Him  who  in  this  case,  as  in  that  of  the 
swine  destroyed  near  Gadara  (see  above,  on  5,  20),  only  did  visibly 
and  audibly  what  God  does  silently  in  every  providential  stroke  and 
judgment  upon  man  or  beast,  upoifi  the  animal  or  vegetable  kingdom. 
It  is  strange  that  the  morality  or  justice  of  an  action  should  depend 
upon  the  visible  and  personal  presence  of  the  actor,  or  his  absence  and 
concealment  from  the  sight  of  men.  The  true  question,  as  to  all  such 
cases,  is  between  the  behever  and  the  unbeliever  in  our  Lord's  divine 
right  to  control  his  creatures  and  the  subjects  of  his  providential  gov- 
ernment. Where  this  great  doctrine  is  admitted,  all  such  objections 
of  detail  will  be  contemptuously  set  aside  as  frivolous. 

22.  And  Jesus  answering  saitli  unto  them,  Have  faith 
in  God. 

If  the  surprise  of  the  disciples  had  related  not  to  the  sign  but  the 
thing  signified,  our  Lord  would  no  doubt  have  expounded  to  them  the 
symbolical  design  of  this  judicial  miracle.  But  as  they  seem  to  have 
correctl}''  understood  its  meaning,  perhaps  aided  by  the  parable  already 
mentioned  (see  above,  on  v.  13),  they  were  chiefl}^  interested  in  the 
miracle  itself,  the  promptness  and  completeness  of  the  change  effected 
by  a  word  from  Jesus.     This  astonishment  implied  a  very  different 


310  MARK  11,  22.  23. 

experience  on  their  own  part,  perhaps  frequent  faihires  h'ke  the  one 
of  which  we  have  ah'ead}'-  had  an  account  (in  9, 18.  28.  29.)  For  such 
disappointments  he  assigns  the  same  cause  as  on  that  occasion,  namely, 
a  detlciency  of  faith,  i.  e.  of  confidence  in  the  divine  power  to  effect 
such  changes,  or  at  least  in  the  divine  grant  to  themselves  of  a  deri- 
vative authority  to  do  the  same.  Haxe  (more  emphatic  than  in  Eng- 
lish, and  denoting  rather  to  retain  or  hold  fant)  faith  in  God^  literally, 
of  God^  a  Greek  idiom,  in  which  the  genitive  denotes  the  object,  and 
which  has  sometimes  been  retained  in  the  translation  (e.  g.  Rom.  3, 
22.  Gal.  2,  IG.  20.  3,  22.  Phil.  3,  9.  Col.  2,  12.  Jas.  2,  1.  Rev.  14, 12), 
as  it  is  here  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible. 

23.  For  verily  I  say  unto  yon,  That  whosoever  shall 
say  unto  this  mountain,  Be  thou  removed,  and  he  thou 
cast  into  the  sea ;  and  shall  not  doubt  in  his  heart,  but 
shall  believe  that  those  things  which  he  saith  shall  come 
to  pass  ;  he  shall  have  whatsoever  he  saith. 

If  this  indispensable  condition  were  complied  with,  they  coald  per- 
form with  equal  ease  the  greatest  and  the  smallest  miracles,  i.  e.  meas- 
ured by  the  scale  of  their  external  phj^sical  effects.  They  could  not 
only  blast  a  fig-tree,  but  remove  a  mountain  from  the  land  into  the 
sea.  This  mountain^  probably  the  mount  of  Olives,  over  which  their 
path  lay  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem.  The  sea^  a  more  indefinite  ex- 
pression, because  not  referring  to  so  near  an  object ;  there  is  no  need 
therefore  of  explaining  it  specifically  of  the  Dead  Sea,  or  the  Mediter- 
ranean, or  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  Whosoever  (or  mhoever)  in  the  first 
clause  means,  of  course,  whoever  has  received  from  me  the  gift  or 
power  of  working  miracles,  to  whom  alone  this  promise  was  intended 
to  apply.  The  mad  attempts  in  later  times  to  do  the  same  by  merely 
praying  and  believing,  are  not  only  fanatical  but  silly,  as  they  exercise 
faith  without  an  object,  trying  to  believe  what  is  not  true,  to  wit,  that 
they  have  previously  been  commissioned  to  perform  such  wonders. 
(See  above,  on  9,  29.)  The  verb  translated  doubt  means  originally  to 
divide  ;  then  to  distinguish  or  discriminate ;  and  then,  in  classical 
usage,  to  determine  or  decide  ;  while  in  Hellenistic  Greek  it  has  the 
opposite  meaning,  to  hesitate  or  doubt.  This  may  be  deduced  either 
from  the  more  elementary  idea  of  differing,  disputing,  with  another  or 
one's  self ;  or  from  that  of  undue  discrimination,  as  for  instance,  be- 
tween great  and  lesser  miracles,  which  last  sense  is  peculiarly  appro- 
priate in  the  case  before  us.  Whocrer  does  not  make  a  difference  of 
this  kind,  or  hesitate  because  he  thinks  the  miracle  too  great,  but 
really  believes  that  God  can  do  it,  and  has  commissioned  him  to  do  it, 
shall  undoubtedly  succeed.  He  shall  hare  (literally,  it  shall  he  to  him) 
ichatetcr  he  may  saij^  i.  e.  command  or  predict  in  God's  name  and  by 
his  authority.  Thus  understood,  the  terms  used  in  the  first  clause 
are  nut  hyperbolical  but  literal,  and  mean  precisely  what  they  say, 
that  if  the  apostles  really  believed  their  own  commission  to  work 


MAKK  11,  23.  24.  25.  311 

miracles  and  faithfully  performed  it,  it  would  be  as  easy  to  remove  a 
mountain  as  to  blast  a  fig-tree.  Be  thou  removed^  literally  lifted,  taken 
up,  but  with  a  view  to  its  removal,  thus  including  the  import  of  two 
English  verbs,  to  talce  up  and  talce  aioay.  Shall  come  to  pass,  literally 
cojnes  to  pass  or  haj^j^ens,  the  present  tense  denoting  the  infallible  cer- 
tainty of  the  event  by  representing  it  as  actually  taking  place.  (See 
above,  on  v.  3.) 

24.  Therefore  I  say  nnto  yon,  What  things  soever  ye 
desire,  when  ye  pray,  believe  that  ye  receive  (them),  and 
ye  shall  have  (them.) 

I'o?'  this  (cause  or  reason),  i.  e.  because  faith  is  thus  essential  to 
success  in  every  thing  dependent  on  a  divine  power.  I  satj  unto  you^  a 
formula  preparing  them  for  something  solemn  and  important  (see 
above,  on  3,  28.  6. 11.  8, 12.  9,  1.  13.  41.  10,  15.  29),  namely,  the  as- 
surance that  whatever  they  believed  they  should  receive  they  would 
receive.  This  may  be  either  a  specific  promise  to  those  clothed  with 
the  power  of  working  miracles,  or  a  generic  promise  to  believers. 
Taking  the  verse  by  itself,  the  latter  would  seem  to  be  the  natural  con- 
struction ;  but  the  intimate  connection  with  what  goes  before  seems 
to  favour  if  not  to  require  the  other,  as  no  good  reason  can  be  given 
for  so  sudden  a  transition  from  a  subject  which  concerned  only  the 
apostles,  to  one  of  general  and  even  universal  interest.  How  could  he 
say  therefore,  i.  e.  because  the  faith  of  miracles  was  indispensable  to 
their  performance,  whoever  asked  any  thing  believing  should  receive  it  ? 

25,  26.  And  wlien  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye 
have  aught  against  any ;  that  your  Father  also  which  is 
in  heaven  may  forgive  yon  your  trespasses.  But  if  ye  do 
not  forgive,  neither  will  your  Father  whicli  is  in  heaven 
forgive  yonr  trespasses. 

The  same  question  here  presents  itself,  as  to  the  generic  or  specific 
application  of  this  precept,  but  attended  with  less  difficulty,  as  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  condition  here  prescribed  is  one  of  universal 
application,  and  the  question  whether  it  was  addressed  to  the  apostles 
as  such,  or  intended  for  believers  generally,  is  of  little  exegetical  or 
practical  importance.  It  seems  more  natural  however  to  suppose  that 
our  Lord  has  reference  to  the  twelve  apostles  still,  and  after  stating 
the  necessity  of  faith  and  the  efficacy  of  believing  prayer,  in  working 
miracles,  reminds  them  that  the  same  moral  dispositions  were  required 
in  this  as  in  all  other  prayer,  particularly  specifying  that  forgiving 
temper  which  he  may  have  seen  to  be  especially  deficient,  at  least  in 
some  of  them.  That  he  had  reference,  moreover,  to  the  angry  or  vin- 
dictive feelings  of  his  followers  towards  the  unbelieving  Jews,  whose 
destiny  had  just  been  foretold,  is  a  possible  but  not  a  very  obvious 
conjecture.     When  ye  stand  "praying,  often  referred  to  as  a  common 


312  MARK  11,  26.  27.  28. 

posture,  and  as  perfectly  consistent  with  the  most  profound  humilia- 
tion (Luke  18, 13),  that  of  kneeling  being  rather  mentioned  on  unusual 
occasions  (Luke  22,  41.  Acts  7,  60.  9,  40.  20,  36.  21,  5if),  but  without 
forbidding  or  requiring  cither.  If  ye  liaie  aiiglit,  i.  e.  any  thing,  any 
ill-wil],  or  even  any  just  ground  of  quarrel  or  complaint.  Against 
any  {one)  or  any  (jperson),  the  Greek  word  being  in  the  singular  num- 
ber. That^  so  that,  in  order  that,  not  as  a  meritorious  ground  or  a 
procuring  cause,  but  simply  as  a  sine  qua  non,  or  indispensable  condi- 
tion, which  is  then  repeated  mox'e  distinctly  in  the  next  verse. 

27.  And  tliey  come  again  to  Jerusalem ;  and  as  he 
was  walking  in  the  temple,  there  come  to  him  the  chief 
priests,  and  tlie  scribes,  and  the  elders. 

On  arriving  the  same  morning  at  Jerusalem  our  Lord  begins  to 
loalk  altout  the  courts  or  area  of  the  temple,  as  if  at  home  or  in  his 
Father's  house  (see  above,  on  v.  11,  and  compare  Luke  2.49),  an  action 
unimportant  in  itself,  but  taken  in  connection  with  his  previous  pro- 
ceedings, tacitly  expressive  of  the  same  claim  which  he  had  already 
more  emphatically  put  forth  by  his  peremptory  cleansing  of  the  tem- 
ple. It  is  not  impossible,  indeed,  that  the  walking  about  here  men- 
tioned was  intended  to  observe  how  far  that  measure  had  accomplished 
its  external  purpose  of  arresting  the  inveterate  profanation  of  that 
sacred  place.  AVhile  thus  engaged  he  is  accosted  b}'-  the  chief  priests, 
scribes,  and  elders.  Now  as  these  are  the  three  classes  who  composed 
the  Sanhedrim  or  national  council  (see  above,  on  1,  22.  8,  31),  and  as 
every  thing  here  indicates  that  Christ's  proceedings  had  attracted  the 
attention  of  that  body,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  this  was  an  offi- 
cial deputation  from  it,  similar  to  that  which  had  been  sent  to  John  the 
Baptist  on  his  first  appearance  (John  1,  19-28.) 

28.  And  say  nnto  him,  Bj  what  authority  doest  thou 
these  things  ?  and  who  gave  thee  this  authority  to  do 
these  things  ? 

This  maybe  regarded  as  the  first  direct  conflict  between  Christ  and 
the  authorities  of  Israel,  all  previous  collisions  having  been  with  indi- 
viduals or  private  combinations  of  unfriendly  parties,  whereas  this,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  probably  an  onset  by  the  Sanhedrim  itself.  The 
demand  here  made  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  merely  officious  and 
malignant ;  for  whatever  may  have  been  the  personal  or  party  motives 
of  the  individuals  concerned,  thoy  were  authorized  and  even  bound,  as 
guardians  of  the  temple  and  the  law,  to  ascertain  on  what  grounds  any 
one  claimed  to  be  a  prophet,  much  more  the  prophet,  i.  e.  the  JMessiah 
(see  above,  on  6, 15.  8.  28,  and  compare  John  1,  21.  25).  But  although 
they  had  this  legal  colour  for  the  course  which  they  pursued,  it  was  in 
fact  a  mere  pi:iitence  and  solenm  mockery  to  ask,  at  this  late  hour,  for 
the  evidence  of  that  which  had  already  been  so  clearly  proved,  that 


MARK  11:  28.  29.  30  313 


they  appear  to  have  avoided  making  the  demand,  until  it  was  extorted 
from  them  by  the  Saviour's  unexpected  recognition  by  the  people  and 
assumption  of  the  Messianic  ofiQce.  Being  thus  put  as  it  were  in  a  de- 
fensive position,  they  were  rather  forced  against  their  will  than  eagerly 
disposed  to  put  the  questions  here  recorded.  By  (or  more  exactly,  in^ 
i.  e.  in  the  exercise  of)  icliat  autliority  (or  delegated  power)  doest 
thou  these  things,  referring  to  his  whole  deportment  since  his  last  arri- 
val, but  particularly,  no  doubt,  to  those  acts  by  which  he  seemed  to 
claim  a  Messianic  or  Prophetic  power.  What  expresses  more  in 
Greek  than  English,  meaning  strictly,  of  what  sort  or  kind  ?  The 
question  then  is,  not  simply  whence  or  from  what  source  the  power 
which  he  exercised  was  derived,  but  what  was  the  nature  of  the  power 
itself,  divine  or  human,  Messianic  or  Prophetic.  The  second  question 
is  by  some  regarded  as  a  more  distinct  enunciation  of  the  tirst ;  but 
with  greater  probability  by  otheis,  as  a  separate  inquiry,  consequent 
upon  the  other  and  pushing  the  inquisition  further  still.  What  is  the 
nature  of  the  office  or  commission  which  you  claim  to  hold?  And 
from  whom  do  you  claim  to  have  received  it  ? 

29.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  tliem,  I  will 
also  ask  of  you  one  question,  and  answer  me,  and  I  will 
tell  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  tilings. 

Instead  of  answering  their  questions,  he  proposes  one  himself  which 
they  must  answer  before  he  will  answer  theirs.  This  has  often  been 
mistaken  by  believing  readers,  and  misrepresented  by  unfriendly  critics, 
as  a  mere  evasion,  though  a  wise  one,  of  the  captious  question  which 
had  been  proposed  to  him.  But  why  should  an  evasion  be  more  wise 
than  silence  or  a  positive  refusal  to  reply  to  all  ?  And  how  could 
either  of  these  causes  be  consistent  with  the  Savour's  dignity,  at  this 
eventful  crisis,  when  the  time  had  come  for  the  assumption  of  his 
Messianic  honours?  The  only  way  in  which  this  difficulty  can  be 
shunned  is  by  maintaining,  that  the  question  which  our  Lord  proposed 
was  not  intended  merely  to  stop  the  mouths  of  his  opponents,  but  to 
answer  their  demands  for  his  credentials,  by  referring  them  to  testi- 
mony which  had  been  presented  long  before,  and  was  really  decisive  of 
the  question.  The  meaning  then  of  this  verse  is,  not  merely  that  his 
question  must  be  answered  first,  but  that  it  involved  the  answer  to 
their  own. 

30.  The  baptism  of  John,  was  (it)  from  heaven,  or  of 
men  ?  answer  me. 

The  dajJtism  of  John  is  here  put  for  his  ministry  or  mission,  as  it 
is  in  several  other  places  (Acts  1,  22.  10,  37.  13,  25),  and  as  the  cross 
is  often  put  for  the  gospel  or  for  the  method  of  salvation  which  it 
teaches  (1  Cor.  1, 17.  IS.  Gal.  5, 11.  6,  12. 14.  Phil.  3,  18.)  From 
heaven,  not  merely  of  celestial  origin,  but  also  of  divine  authority.  0/ 
men,  a  variation  only  found  in  the  translation,  as  the  Greek  preposi- 
14 


314  MAUK  11,  30.  31.  32. 


tion  is  the  same  in  either  c2ise.from  men,  i.  e.  of  earthly  origin  and  hu- 
man authority.  The  question  thus  alternatively  stated  is  the  simple 
question  whether  John  was  a  true  prophet  and  a  messenger  from 
heaven.  Answer  me,  i.  e.  if  you  can,  or  if  you  dare,  the  peremptory 
challenge  so  to  do  implying  that  they  would  not  venture  to  reply. 

31.  And  they  reasoned  with  themselves,  saying,  If  we 
shall  say,  From  heaven ;  he  will  say,  Why  then  did  ye 
not  believe  him  ? 

They  reasoned,  or  still  more  exactly,  reckoned,  calculated,  the  effect 
of  their  replying  one  way  or  the  other,  an  expression  which  implies 
that  they  were  governed  more  by  policy  than  principle  in  making  this 
demand.  ^Yitll  (or  ^o)  themselves,  not  only  individually  {each  one  to 
himself),  but  collectively  {among  themselves),  as  consultation  was  ne- 
cessary to  a  joint  reply,  which  also  makes  it  still  more  probable  that 
this  was  not  a  private  but  an  official  application  (see  above,  on  v.  27.) 
Why  then,  i.  e.  if  he  was  a  prophet  sent  from  God,  did  ye  not  ielieve 
him  f  This  may  seem  to  be  a  very  insufficient  reason  for  refusing  to 
acknowledge  their  belief  of  John's  divine  legation  ;  and  it  is  so  if  Re- 
lieve him  merely  means,  acknowledge  his  pretensions  or  the  truth  of 
his  doctrines.  AVhy  should  they  care  for  being  thus  reproached,  when 
Christ  had  so  often  uttered  far  more  grievous  charges  against  them  or 
the  order  to  which  they  belonged  ?  The  only  satisfactory  solution  of 
this  difficulty  is  the  one  afforded  by  attaching  to  helieve  its  true  specific 
sense,  which  is  that  of  believing  what  John  said  of  Christ,  or  receiving 
the  forerunner's  testimon}?-  to  his  principal.  If  they  acknowledged 
John's  divine  legation,  they  tacitly  acknowledged  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  which  he  had  so  publicly  and  solemnly  attested  (John  1, 15.  26. 
29.  32-34.  36.  3,  30.  36.)  This  not  only  explains  their  motive  for  re- 
fusing to  admit  the  truth  of  John's  pretensions,  namely,  their  reluc- 
tance to  assent  to  what  would  follow  necessarily,  to  wit,  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  but  also  vindicates  our  Saviour  from  the  charge  of 
evading  so  important  and  legitimate  a  question  (see  above,  on  v.  29.) 

32.  But  if  we  shall  say,  of  men  ;  they  feared  the  peo- 
ple ;  for  all  (men)  counted  John  that  he  was  a  prophet 
indeed. 

The  other  answer  to  the  question  was  no  less  objectionable  but  for 
a  very  different  reason,  namel}-,  their  unwillingness  to  brave  the  popu- 
lar conviction  and  belief  of  John's  divine  legation  as  a  prophet,  which 
appears  to  have  been  undiminished  by  our  Saviour's  subsequent  ap- 
pearance, showing  clearly  that  the  two  were  not  considered  rivals,  but 
co-workers  in  the  same  great  process,  though  unequal  in  rank  and 
original  authority.  There  is  a  slight  irregularity,  or  rather  sudden 
change,  in  the  construction  of  this  sentence,  but  without  effect  upon 
the  meaning.   It  consists  m  abruptly  breaking  off  what  these  rulers  said 


MARK   11,  32.  33.  315 

themselves,  and  continuing  the  sentence  in  the  words  of  the  historian, 
they  feartd  instead  of  we  fear^  as  expressed  by  Matthew  (21,  26)  and 
Luke  (20,  6.)  Held  John  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  considered 
or  esteemed  him  ;  but  it  may  have  the  same  sense  as  in  v.  22,  to  wit, 
that  they  adhered  to  him,  or  held  him  fast,  as  a  true  prophet. 

33.  And  tliey  answered  and  said  imto  Jesus,  We  can- 
not tell.  And  Jesus  answering  saitli  unto  tliem,  Neither 
do  I  tell  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these  things. 

We  cannot  tell,  literally,  we  do  not  Tcnow  (compare  John  16, 18), 
instead  of  which  our  Lord  himself  says  simply  and  authoritatively, 
neither  do  I  tell  you.  This,  as  we  have  seen  already,  is  no  gratuitous 
or  puerile  evasion  of  a  lawful  and  to  all  appearance  reasonable  ques- 
tion, but  a  virtual  though  not  a  formal  answer  to  it,  under  the  disguise 
of  a  question  in  return.  The  last  clause  therefore  of  the  verse  before 
us  does  not  mean,  as  some  seem  to  imagine,  and  as  others  willingly 
pretend,  '  since  you  cannot  answer  my  inquiry  upon  one  point,  I  will 
not  answer  yours  upon  another,  wholly  different  and  unconnected  with 
it.'  But  it  means,  '  as  you  refuse  the  testimou}''  borne  to  my  Messiah- 
ship  by  John  the  Baptist,  whose  prophetic  inspiration  and  divine  com- 
mission you  dare  not  deny,  so  I  refuse  to  give  j^ou  any  other  satisfac- 
tion in  reply  to  your  demand  for  my  authority.'  The  principle  involved 
is  the  same  as  in  his  previous  refusal  of  a  sign  from  heaven  (see  above, 
on  8, 12),  and  in  Abraham's  answer  to  the  rich  man  in  the  parable,  "  If 
they  hear  not  JNIoses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  jDcrsuaded 
though  one  rose  from  the  dead ''  (Luke  16,  31.)  The  principle  itself  is 
the  obviously  just  one,  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  demand  a  superfluity 
of  evidence  on  any  question  of  belief  or  duty,  and  that  as  tiic  call  for 
such  accumulated  proof  is  a  virtual  rejection  of  that  previously  given, 
it  is  the  law  of  the  divine  administration  to  refuse  it  even  as  a  favour, 
and  to  deal  with  those  who  ask  it  as  guilt}'  of  the  twofold  crime  of 
tempting  God,  in  the  original  and  strict  sense  of  that  strange  expres- 
sion (see  Ex..l7,  2.  7.  Deut.  6,  16.  Ps.  78,18.41.56.  Isai.  7,  12,  and 
compare  Jas.  1, 13),  and  of  making  him  a  liar,  as  John  still  more 
strangely  phrases  it,  i.  e.  treating  him  as  a  false  witness  (1  John  5, 10.) 
With  this  view  of  the  passage,  while  it  still  remains  a  signal  instance 
of  our  Saviour's  divine  wisdom  in  replying  to  objections  and  in  silencing 
opponents,  it  does  not  consist,  as  some  unworthily  imagine,  in  evading 
a  momentous  though  malignant  question  by  propounding  one  still 
harder  on  another  subject,  but  in  tearing  off  the  mask  of  hypocritical 
anxiety  to  know  the  truth  and  save  the  name  of  God  from  profanation, 
by  requiring  those  who  questioned  him  to  say  first  whether  they  be- 
lieved the  testimony  previously  given,  and  of  which  his  own  was  really 
a  confii'mation  and  continuation.  Thus  explained,  his  answer  may  bo 
amplified  and  paraphrased  as  follows.  '  You  demand  by  what  right  I 
perform  these  functions,  which  belong  not  even  to  an  ordinary  prophet, 
but  to  the  Messiah  only,  as  if  this  were  your  first  acquaintance  with  nn'- 
claims,  and  as  if  no  attestation  of  them  had  as  yet  been  given ;  though 


31G  MARK  11,  66. 


you  know  well  that  my  ministry  was  heralded  by  that  of  a  forerunner, 
who  explicitly  bore  witness  to  me  as  the  true  Messiah,  and  whose  tes- 
timony cannot  be  rejected  without  calling  in  question  his  divine  lega- 
tion, wliich  I  therefore  challenge  3^ou  to  do,  or  if  you  dare  not,  to  re- 
ceive his  attestation  of  my  claims,  instead  of  asking  me  for  other  and 
unnecessary  evidence ;  and  if  you  are  unwilling  to  do  either.  I  have  still 
more  right  and  reason  to  say.  Neither  do  I  tell  you  by  what  authority 
I  do  these  things.' 


-*-*^- 


CIIAPTEK  XII. 

Mark  here  continues  his  account  of  the  great  conflict  between  Christ 
and  the  authorities  of  Israel,  occasioned  by  his  publicly  and  unexpect- 
edly assuming  that  official  character,  which  he  had  before  only  claimed 
obscurely,  indirectly,  or  in  private.  Following  up  his  conclusive  answer 
to  their  demand  for  his  commission  or  credentials,  he  propounds  a  para- 
ble, that  of  the  wicked  husbandmen  or  vinedressers,  setting  forth  the 
conduct  of  the  Jews,  throughout  their  history  as  a  church  or  chosen 
people,  to  the  prophets,  as  messengers  from  God,  and  to  himself,  as  the 
last  and  greatest  of  the  series,  with  an  intimation  of  the  necessary  issue 
to  themselves,  to  wit,  the  loss  of  their  peculiar  privileges  (1-9.)  In 
order  to  express  distinctly  the  important  fact,  that  although  put  to 
death  by  their  hands,  he  was  himself  to  be  their  judge  and  their  de- 
stroyer, he  subjoins  another  parabolical  prediction,  drawn  from  the  Old 
Testament,  to  that  effect,  and  understood  by  those  for  whom  it  was 
intended,  but  whose  hands  are  still  tied  by  their  dread  of  popular  com- 
motion (10-12.)  Instead  of  violence  they  therefore  still  resort  to  cun- 
ning, by  proposing  a  series  of  questions  to  entrap  him  and  embroil  him 
either  with  the  people  or  their  Roman  masters.  The  first,  propounded 
bv  a  coalition  of  Herodians  and  Pharisees,  related  to  the  lawfulness  of 
their  subjection  to  the  Roman  domination,  but  was  answered  so  as  to 
avoid  the  snare  and  lay  down  an  important  principle,  exciting  at  the 
same  time  the  surprise  and  admiration  of  his  hearers  (13-17.)  The 
next  attempt  was  by  the  Sadducees,  and  therefore  in  a  more  frivolous 
and  scoffing  tone,  intended  by  a  fictitious  or  exaggerated  case,  to  expose 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  as  a  gross  absurdity,  but  made  the  oc- 
casion of  a  most  important  vindication  of  that  doctrine  (18-27.)  The 
third  question  was  proposed  by  a  scribe  or  doctor  of  the  law,  with  re- 
spect to  the  relative  importance  of  God's  precepts,  and  so  answered  as 
not  only  to  present  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  wiiole  law,  but  to 
command  the  admiration  and  assent  of  the  person  who  had  put  the 
question,  and  to  silence  all  who  were  disposed  to  push  the  inquisition 
farther  (28-84.)  Having  thus  disposed  of  their  interrogations,  he  now 
asks  a  question  in  return,  involving  an  important  Messianic  prophecy, 
the  true  sense  of  which  had  been  corrupted  or  lost  sight  of  (35-37.)   This 


MARK  12,  1.  317 


is  followed  by  a  warning  to  the  people  against  leaders  so  unworthy  to 
be  trusted,  both  on  account  of  their  false  doctrine  and  their  covetous 
hypocrisy  (38-40.)  By  a  slight  but  natural  association,  this  important 
narrative  is  wound  up  wnth  a  contrast  between  great  and  small  gifts  to 
the  treasury,  and  a  statement  of  the  rule  by  which  their  value  is  to  be 
determined  (41-44.) 

1.  And  lie  began  to  speak  unto  tliem  by  parables.  A 
(certain)  man  planted  a  vineyard,  and  set  an  hedge  about 
(it),  and  digged  (a  place  for)  the  wine-fat,  and  bnilt  a 
tower,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went  into  a  far 
country. 

Began,  i.  e.  began  again,  resumed  the  series  interrupted  in  4,  34 ; 
or  began  the  series  afterwards  continued,  although  not  recorded  in  de- 
tail by  Mark  (compare  Matt.  21,  28.  22, 1.  25,  1. 14.)  The  parables 
uttered  by  our  Lord  in  this  visit  to  Jerusalem  have  a  peculiar  charac- 
ter, not  only  of  significancy  and  solemnity,  but  also  of  appropriateness 
to  the  crisis,  and  to  the  position  which  he  had  assumed  tow^ards  the 
rulers  of  the  church  and  people.  By  2)nrable8,  literally,  in  them,  i.  e. 
in  the  use  of  them,  or  in  that  particular  form  of  instruction.  The  idea 
of  this  parable  is  found  more  than  once  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ex.  15, 
17.  Ps.  80,  8),  but  most  distinctly  in  Isaiah  5,  1-7,  which  our  Saviour 
no  doubt  had  in  view  on  this  occasion  and  assumed  to  be  familiar  to 
his  readers.  A  certain  man,  or  more  exactl}^,  a  man,  without  any 
qualifjang  epithet.  Planted  a  xineyard,  i.  e.  planted  vines  in  an  en- 
closure, which  is  regarded  in  the  east  as  the  most  profitable  kind  of 
husbandry.  The  word  translated  Jiedge  means  any  kind  of  fence  or 
enclosure,  and  is  applicable  even  to  a  stone  w^all  (Eph.  2, 14),  but  is 
here  commonly  supposed  to  mean  a  thorn-hedge,  which  is  regarded  as 
the  most  effectual  protection  against  man  and  beast.  Digged  a  loine- 
fat,  or  under-vat,  the  cellar  or  receptacle  beneath  the  wine-press,  into 
which  the  grape-juice  flowed  through  a  wooden  grate  or  lattice.  The 
circumlocution  in  the  version  is  superfluous,  the  wine-vat  itself  being 
commonly  an  excavation.  A  tower,  not  necessarily  a  permanent  or 
lofty  structure,  but  applied  to  any  building  the  height  of  which  is  its 
principal  dimension,  and  in  this  case  descriptive  of  a  shed  or  scaffold, 
still  used  in  vine-growing  countries  to  protect  the  ripening  grapes  from 
depredation.  All  these  are  mentioned  (as  in  Isaiah  6,  2)  to  indicate 
the  care  bestowed  upon  the  vineyard,  not  as  being  the  only  acts  re- 
quired for  the  purpose,  but  as  examples  or  suggestive  of  the  rest.  Let 
it  out,  literally,  gave  it  out,  i.  e.  for  hire,  a  verb  emploj'ed  in  the  same 
sense  by  Herodotus.  Husbandmen,  cultivators,  tillers  of  the  ground,  here 
used  in  the  specific  sense  of  vine-dressers,  keepers  of  a  vineyard,  the  exact 
Greek  term  for  which  occurs  in  Luke  13, 7.  Interpreters  dilier  very  much 
as  to  the  meaning  to  be  put  on  the  particulars  of  this  description,  some 
assigning  a  specific  import  to  the  hedge,  vat,  tower,  &c.,  but  all  agree- 
ing that  the  whole  description  is  a  lively  image  of  the  relation  between 


318  MARK  12,  1.  2.  3. 


God  and  Israel  as  his  chosen  people,  carefully  segregated  from  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  provided  with  extraordinary  means  of  spiritual  culture  and 
protection,  We7it  into  a  far  count ry  is  perhaps  too  strong  a  version 
of  the  Greek,  which  simply  means  to  leave  one's  people  or  to  go  abroad, 
without  specification  of  the  distance.  The  hiring  out  and  the  departure 
are  of  course  not  to  be  pressed,  but  understood  as  circumstances  intro- 
duced in  order  to  describe  God  as  sending  and  the  people  refusing.  If 
explained  more  precisely,  the  departure  may  denote,  not  an  essential, 
providential,  or  spiritual  absence,  but  the  mere  cessation  of  those  great 
theophanies  or  visible  appearances  of  God,  which  preceded  and  accom- 
panied the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai,  and  were  followed  by  a  series  of 
more  mediate  and  indirect  communications,  both  of  an  ordinary  kind 
through  his  constituted  representatives,  the  kings  and  priests  of  the  the- 
ocracy, and  also  of  a  more  extraordinary  nature  by  the  special  and  occa- 
sional ministry  of  prophets.  The  former  class  are  then  described,  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  a  vineyard,  as  the  husbandmen,  to  whom 
it  was  let  out  or  hired  durino;  the  absence  of  the  owner. 


o 


2.  And  at  the  season  lie  sent  to  the  hnsbanclmen  a  ser- 
vant, that  he  might  receive  from  the  hnsbanclmen  of  the 
frnit  of  the  vineyard. 

At  the  season,  in  the  time  of  fruit,  or  of  the  vintage.  Of  tlie  fruity 
in  the  last  clause,  is  a  partitive  expression,  meaning  some  (or  a  por- 
tion) of  the  fruit,  which  may  be  understood  as  implying  that  the  vine- 
yard was  let  out  on  shares,  a  common  practice  still,  both  in  Europe 
and  the  East,  and  described  hy  travellers  as  usually  much  more  advan- 
tageous to  the  cultivators  than  to  the  proprietors  or  owners  of  the  soil. 
The  sending  of  the  servant  for  this  purpose  naturally  represents  any 
call  or  summons  to  account  for  the  advantages  enjoyed,  or  the  trust 
committed  to  God's  people,  and  especially  to  those  who  hold  official 
stations.  Most  interpreters  explain  it  here  still  more  precisely,  as  de- 
noting the  extraordinary  missions  of  the  prophets  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment econoni}',  who  might,  almost  without  a  figure,  be  described  as 
servants  sent  to  demand  the  fruits  which  the  people  and  their  rulers 
were  required  to  produce,  i.  e.  obedience  to  God's  will  and  devotion  to 
his  service.  Even  here,  however,  it  is  better  to  rest  in  the  general  re- 
lation thus  denoted,  than  to  urge  particular  resemblances  which  may 
not  have  been  so  intended.  For  the  general  principles  of  parabolical 
interpretation,  as  propounded  and  exemplified  by  Christ  himself,  see 
above,  on  4, 14-20. 

3.  And  they  canght  (him),  and  beat  him,  and  sent 

(him)  away  empty. 

But  they,  the  husbandmen,  not  only  failed  to  execute- their  conti'act 
by  delivering  at  least  a  portion  of  the  fruits,  but  treated  the  message 
with  contempt,  and  the  bearer  of  it  with  insulting  violence.  Talcing 
him  they  heat  (hini),  a  verb  which  strictly  means  to  flay  or  skin,  but 


MARK  12,  3.  4.  319 

is  SGCondarily  applied  to  the  severest  kind  of  scourging.  Emj)ty^ 
empty-handed,  i.  e.  without  that  which  he  came  for.  According  to  the 
obvious  design  of  the  whole  parable,  this  is  a  lively  figure  for  the  un- 
dutiful  and  violent  reception  often  given  to  the  prophets  or  other 
divine  messengers,  and  expressly  mentioned  by  the  Saviour  elsewhere. 
(See  Matt.  23,29-31.  34,37.  Luke  11,47-50.  13,33.34,  and  compare 
1  Th.  2, 15.  Rev.  16,  6.  18,  24.) 

4.  And  again,  lie  sent  unto  tliem  another  servant,  and 
at  him  thej  cast  stones^  and  wonnded  (him)  in  the  head, 
and  sent  (him)  away  shamefully  handled. 

It  is  equally  needless  and  impossible  to  identify  these  servants  with 
particular  prophets,  or  even  with  specific  periods  in  the  history  of 
Israel,  the  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  being  simply  that  of  repetition 
and  succession,  of  a  sin  not  perpetrated  once  for  all,  but  frequently 
committed  through  a  course  of  ages.  There  is  however  a  perceptible 
gradation  in  the  conduct  of  the  people  here  exhibited,  the  first  servant 
having  been  only  beaten,  but  the  second  stoned  and  wounded  in  the 
head.  At  him  they  ea>st  stones  is  the  true  sense  of  the  Greek  verb  here, 
altbough  it  usually  means  to  kill  by  stoning  (see  Matt.  23,  37.  Luke 
13,  34.  John  8,  5.  Acts  7,  58.  59.  Heb.  12,  20),  which  is  here  precluded 
by  the  statement  in  the  last  clause.  Pelting  with  stones  is  speci- 
fied not  only  as  an  easy  and  familiar  kind  of  violence,  but  also  as  the 
usual  form  of  capital  punishment  under  the  Mosaic  law,  preferred  be- 
cause it  could  be  inflicted  by  a  number,  and  particularly  by  the  witnesses 
or  prosecutors,  who  were  thus  deterred  from  rash  and  groundless  accu- 
sations (Lev.  '20,  2.  27.  24,  14.  16.  23.)  This  judicial  usage  gave  to 
lapidation  a  peculiar  character  among  the  Jews,  even  when  practised 
without  formal  process,  as  a  sort  of  charge,  against  those  who  were 
thus  stoned,  of  some  crime  against  the  theocracy.  As  we  know 
that  some  of  the  prophets  perished  in  this  way  (Matt.  23,  37.  Luke  13, 
34),  there  is  a  twofold  fitness  in  the  action  here  ascribed  to  the  hus- 
bandmen, both  as  a  natural  and  common  form  of  violence,  and  also  as 
historically  true  with  respect  to  the  thing  signified.  Wounded  in  the 
head^  a  Greek  verb  used  b}"  Thucydides  in  the  sense  of  recapitulating, 
summing  up,  reducing  to  heads  or  to  one  head  (compare  the  compound 
form  in  Rom.  13,  9.  Eph.  1, 10).  which  is  plainly  a  figurative  secondary 
usage,  while  the  one  which  here  occurs,  though  not  found  in  the  classics, 
is  an  obvious  derivative  from  liead  in  its  original  or  proper  import,  and 
had  probably  been  preserved  in  the  dialect  of  common  life.  Shamefully 
handled^  literally,  dishonoured,  i.  e.  outraged  or  insulted.  This  is  a 
sensible  advance  upon  the  sending  away  empty  of  the  verse  preceding, 
the  counterpart  of  which  is  not  to  be  sought  in  particular  aggravated 
cases  of  misconduct  towards  the  prophets,  but  in  the  general  declension 
of  the  unbelieving  Jews  from  bad  to  worse  throughout  their  history. 

5.  And  again  he  sent  another,  and  him  they  killed ; 
and  many  others,  beating  some,  and  killing  some. 


320  MARK  12,  5.  6.  7. 

Again  is  here  omitted  by  the  latest  critics,  but  with  no  effect  upon 
the  meaning,  the  progression  being  adequately  marked  without  it.  The 
climax  here  attains  its  height,  so  far  as  the  maltreatment  of  the  servants 
is  concerned,  the  beating  and  the  stoning  of  the  first  two  cases  being 
followed  in  the  tliird  by  killing.  But  that  this  was  not  intended  to  de- 
note any  such  exact  progression  in  the  history,  is  now  made  plain  by 
the  addition  of  the  last  clause,  showing  that  the  cases  previously  men- 
tioned were  selected  as  examples  out  of  many  others  varying  in  aggra- 
vation. 

6.  Having  yet  therefore  one  son,  his  well-belovecl,  he 
sent  him  also  last  unto  them,  saying,  They  will  reverence 
my  son. 

There  is  something  peculiar  but  expressive  in  the  very  collocation 
of  the  first  clause,  yet  tlterefore  one  son  having^  his  'beloved^  which  how- 
ever is  contracted  by  the  modern  critics  into  yet  one  son  he  had.  There- 
fore, not  a  logical  connective  meaning /o?'  this  reason,  but  a  continuative 
particle  equivalent  to  so,  or  so  then^  in  familiar  narrative.  The  connec- 
tion here  suggested  is,  that  having  sent  his  servants  all  in  vain,  he  had 
now  none  left  to  send  except  his  only  and  his  well-beloved  son.  This 
circumstance,  so  admirably  suited  to  command  our  sympathy  in  and 
human  case,  becomes  revolting  when  transferred  directly  to  a  divine 
subject ;  a  sufficient  proof  that  parables  are  not  to  be  expounded  by 
adjusting  the  particular  analogies  and  then  deducing  general  conclusions, 
but  by  matching  the  supposed  case,  as  a  whole,  with  the  real  case  which 
it  illustrates  as  a  whole,  and  letting  only  such  minute  points  correspond 
as  naturally  fit  into  each  other  without  violence  or  artifice.  This 
method  is  not  only  recommended  by  its  practical  necessity  in  order  to 
avoid  the  grossest  incongruities,  and  also  by  the  principles  of  good  taste 
and  the  general  analogy  of  language  and  interpretation,  but  required  by 
our  Saviour's  own  example  in  interpreting  a  few  of  his  own  parables 
(see  above,  on  4, 10-20.)  To  this  supreme  authority  it  is  vain  to  op- 
pose that  of  Bernard  or  Augustin,  or  the  dangerous  position  that  a 
parable  must  be  made  to  mean  as  much  as  possible.  Here  again  the 
emphasis,  though  not  the  meaning,  is  impaired  by  a  departure  from 
the  original  arrangement,  he  sent  also  him  unto  them  last.  The  con- 
cluding words  of  this  verse  are  so  plainly  expressive  of  hope  or  expec- 
tation, as  to  show  still  further  that  it  is  not  this  one  figure  in  the 
parable  that  corresponds  to  God,  but  the  whole  picture  of  the  vinej^ard, 
with  its  owner  and  his  husbandmen  and  son  and  rewards,  that  corre- 
sponds to  the  whole  history  of  Israel's  undutiful  reception  of  God's 
messages  and  wicked  violence  to  those  who  brought  them. 

7.  But  those  husbandmen  said  among  theinselves,  This 
is  the  heir ;  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inheritance  shall 
be  oui*s. 

But.,  while  the  owner  of  the  vineyard  thus  relied  upon  their  prob- 


MARK  12,  7.  8.  9.  321 

able  respect  for  his  own  son,  tliose  husbandmen^  a  natural  but  graphic 
stroke,  which  seems  to  point  them  out  as  standinj^  on  the  other  side,  in 
bold  relief  and  opposition  to  the  figure  in  the  foreground.  Amongst 
(literally,  to  or  witli)  themselves,  a  very  common  idiomatic  phrase, 
which  might  seem  to  denote  mere  individual  reflection,  but  is  deter- 
mined to  mean  more,  namely,  mutual  consultation,  not  only  by  the 
usage  of  the  same  terms  elsewhere  (see  above,  on  2,  8.  9,  33.  10,  26), 
but  by  the  nature  of  the  proposition  made,  necessarily  implying  a 
l^lurality  of  actors,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence,  of  plotters.  The 
heir,  the  owner  of  the  vineyard  by  filial  or  hereditary  right.  Coine, 
hither,  the  invitatory  adverb  used  in  10,  21,  but  with  a  plural  termina- 
tion like  a  verb,  as  in  1. 17.  6,  31.  It  is  here,  like  come  in  English,  not 
expressive  of  mere  motion,  but  a  proposition  to  perform  a  certain  act, 
even  though  it  could  be  done  without  a  change  of  place  at  all.  Here 
again  it  is  incongruous  to  press  the  correspondence  of  the  sign  and  the 
thing  signified,  although  this  proposition  bears  an  evident  analogy  to 
the  ambitious  and  absurd  attempt  of  the  Jewish  rulers,  in  the  time  of 
Christ,  to  oust  him  from  his  heritage  and  make  their  own  provisional 
authority  perpetual.  In  every  effort  to  continue  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions beyond  the  time  prescribed  for  their  duration,  the  Jews  have 
been  guilty  of  the  usurpation  here  projected  by  the  husbandmen. 

8.  And  tliey  took  him,  and  killed  (liini),  and  cast 
(him)  ont  of  tlie  vineyard. 

Took  him^  the  words  translated  caught  him  in  v.  3,  and  in  both 
cases  strictly  meaning  taking  him,  as  a  preparatory  act  to  further  vio- 
lence. Killed  him  and  caM  him  out  would  seem  to  mean  that  the 
latter  insult  was  ofi*ered  to  his  dead  body  ;  but  as  Matthew  (21,  39)  and 
Luke  (20,  15)  invert  the  clauses,  there  is  probably  no  stress  to  be  laid 
upon  the  order,  and  Mark's  expression,  although  less  exact,  may  be 
considered  as  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  others.  The  act  of  casting 
out  denotes  the  whole  rejection  of  our  Lord,  but  perhaps  with  an  allu- 
sion to  the  literal  fact  of  his  suffering  without  the  Holy  City  (see  below, 
on  15,  20,  and  compare  Heb.  13,  11-13),  which  must  not  however  be 
regarded  as  the  whole  sense,  any  more  than  John  the  Baptist's  preach- 
ing in  a  wilderness  exhausted  the  prediction  of  Isaiah  (see  above,  on  1, 
3.  4),  or  the  dividing  of  our  Saviour's  garments  that  of  David  (see 
below,  on  15,  24,  and  compare  Ps.  22,  18).  As  in  many  cases  the 
external  coincidence  serves  merely  to  identify  the  subject  of  a  pro- 
phec}^,  the  same  rule  may  at  least  occasionally  hold  good  in  the  expo- 
sition of  a  parable. 

9.  Wliat  shall  therefore  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  do? 
He  will  come  and  destroy  the  husbandmen,  and  will  give 
the  vineyard  unto  others. 

What  shall  (or  loill)  he  do,  not  merely  what  would  the  owner  of  a 
vineyard  do  in  such  a  case  as  that  supposed ;  for  this  form  of  the 

14* 


322  MARK  12,  9.  10. 

question  would  imply  that  the  whole  case  was  hypothetical ;  whereas 
the  future  treats  it  as  a  real  one,  and  still  in  progress,  thus  affording  a 
natural  and  beautiful  transition  from  the  sign  to  the  thing  signified. 
As  if  he  had  said,  by  way  of  application,  '  Well,  there  is  such  a  vine- 
j'ard  and  there  are  such  husbandmen  and  they  have  done  all  this ;  and 
now  I  ask  you  how  the  owner  of  the  soil  may  be  expected  to  treat 
such  tenants  V  The  answer  to  this  question,  which  Mark  records  as 
given  by  our  Lord  himself  (compare  Matt.  21,  41),  is  one  of  the 
clearest  intimations  of  the  change  of  dispensations,  the  destruction  of 
the  faithless  Jewish  rulers,  and  the  transfer  of  their  privileges  to 
another  people,  neither  Jews  nor  Gentiles  as  such,  but  a  new  commu- 
nity composed  of  both.  The  question  how  the  vineyard,  if  it  means  the 
Jewish  church,  could  be  taken  from  the  Jews  themselves,  is  one  of 
those  arising  from  the  practice,  which  has  been  already  mentioned,  of 
matching  the  detached  parts  of  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  instead 
of  treating  them  as  wholes  and  letting  the  minutiae  adjust  themselves. 
The  supposed  violation  of  analogy  is  nothing  to  the  one  in  the  parable 
of  the  ISowcr,  where  the  seed  is  first  explained  to  mean  the  word,  and 
then  apparently  identified  with  the  hearers  (see  above,  on  4,  15.  16. 
18.  20).  and  yet  no  plain  reader  of  that  parable  has  ever  been 
disturbed  in  his  conceptions  of  it,  because  founded  on  the  obvious 
sense  and  aijplication  of  the  whole,  and  not  on  a  measurement  of  each 
supposed  correspondence  by  itself.  The  solution  given  by  some  writers 
of  this  difficulty,  namely,  that  the  vineyard  does  not  mean  the  Jewish 
churcli  but  the  Kingdom  of  God  among  the  Jews,  is  rather  an  evasion 
than  an  explanation,  or,  if  not  evasive,  is  at  least  superfluous,  for  the 
reasons  just  suggested. 

10.  And  have  ye  not  read  this  scripture  :  Tlie  stone 

which  the  builders  rejected  is  become  the  head  of  the 

corner — 

Admirably  suited  as  this  parable  was  to  illustrate  the  conduct  of 
the  Jews  to  the  Prophets  and  to  Christ  himself,  it  was  insufficient  for 
his  purpose,  as  to  one  point,  namely,  that  it  left  the  Son  dead  outside 
of  the  vine3'ard,  and  ascribed  the  work  of  vengeance  only  to  the  father. 
To  intimate  his  own  resuscitation  and  return  as  an  avenger,  he  subjoins 
another  parable  (in  the  wide  sense  of  the  term)  also  derived  from  the 
Old  Testament,  but  not  amplified  like  the  other  or  reduced  to  narra- 
tive form.  The  passage  quoted  is  Ps.  118,  22,  in  the  Scptuagint 
version  with  but  little  change.  The  words  in  the  original  immediately 
precede  the  Hosanna  uttered  by  the  people  in  their  acclamations  at  his 
public  entrance  (see  above,  on  11.  9.  10)  and  imply  his  sanction  of  that 
application.  Have  you  not  read^  or  did  you  never  read,  a  form  of 
speech  implying  that  the  Hebrew  scriptures  were  not  merely  read  in 
public  but  in  private.  This  scripture,  in  the  specific  sense  of  a  text  or 
passage  (see  below,  on  15,  18,  and  compare  Luke  4,  21.)  Rejected  is 
in  Greek  still  more  expressive,  as  it  implies  previous  examination, 
proof,  or  trial  (see  above,  on  8,  31).       The  Inulders,  or  those  building 


MARK  12,  10-12.  323 

(the  spiritual  temple  or  the  kingdom  of  Messiah),  an  appropriate  de- 
scription of  the  priests  and  rulers  whose  official  work  it  was  to  carry- 
forward that  great  enterprise,  which  might  well  be  likened  to  a  glorious 
structure,  such  as  a  palace  or  a  temple  (1  Cor.  3,  9.  Eph.  2,  21).  Is 
hecome.,  literally,  tJiis  is  (or  has)  hecomefor,  i.  e.  been  converted  into,  a 
head,  not  the  top  or  summit  but  the  main  or  chief  stone,  of  a  cojmer,  and 
therefore  an  important  part  of  the  foundation.  Augustin  and  other 
Fathers  make  the.  point  of  the  comparison  to  be  the  junction  of  two 
walls  as  an  emblem  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Some  later  writers 
understand  the  corner-stone  itself  as  an  emblem  of  the  Gentiles,  whom 
the  Jews  rejected,  but  whom  God  was  about  to  put  into  their  place. 
But  the  reference  to  Christ  is  required  not  only  by  the  context  here, 
but  by  the  repeated  application  of  the  passage  to  him  elsewhere  (com- 
pare Eph.  2,  20.  1  Pet.  -2,  6). 

11.  This  Avas  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in 
our  eyes? 

From  the  Lord  teas  (came  to  pass,  proceeded)  this^  a  feminine  form 
in  Greek,  which  most  interpreters  regard  as  a  close  copy  of  the  Hebrew 
idiom,  in  which  there  is  no  neuter  form,  but  the  feminine  pronoun  is 
used  to  signify  this  thing.  Some  of  the  best  interpreters,  however, 
make  it  agree  regularly  with  the  feminine  noun  head  or  cortier  which 
removes  the  irregularity  in  Greek,  but  only  by  departing  from  the 
Hebrew  construction.  From  Mark's  brief  account  it  might  appear, 
that  this  quotation  was  intended  merely  to  describe  Christ  as  exalted 
to  his  proper  place  in  "  God's  building,"  notwithstanding  his  contempt- 
uous rejection  by  the  Jews ;  but  from  the  fuller  report  of  Matthew 
(21,  43.  44)  and  Luke  (20, 18),  we  learn  that  it  was  also  meant  to 
represent  him  as  a  judge  and  a  destroyer,  an  idea  which  the  foregoing 
parable  could  not  convey  without  a  violation  of  its  plan  and  imagery, 
which  requiredjthe  Son  to  be  regarded  simply  as  a  victim  to  the  cupidity 
and  liatred  of  the  husbandmen. 

12.  And  tliey  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him,  but  feared 
the  people  ;  for  tliey  knew  that  he  had  spoken  the  parable 
against  tliem ;  and  they  left  him,  and  went  their  way. 

They^  not  the  people,  who  are  distinguished  from  them  in  the 
next  clause,  but  the  chief  priests,  scribes,  and  elders,  whose  demand 
for  his  commission  or  authority  had  given  occasion  to  this  whole 
discourse  (see  above,  on  11,  27.)  Sought,  not  merely  wished,  but  used 
means,  or  at  least  endeavoured  to  discover  them.  But^  literally,  and^ 
the  simple  conjunctive  being  often  used  where  an  adversative  particle 
is  required  by  our  idiom.  The  2>eople,  literally,  the  crowd,  the  masses, 
whom  they  despised  as  well  as  feared  (John  7,  49.)  They  Tcneio  is  by 
some  referred  to  croiod  ot  people,  as  a  collective,  tJiey  (the  people)  Icneio 
that  he  spol:e  the  jmraMe  to  (at  or  against)  them  (the  priests,  &c.),  and 
the  latter  therefore  did  not  dare  to  seize  him,  lest  the  peoplf>  ciir."i.i 


324  MARK  12,  13.  14. 

take  sides  with  him  against  their  rulers.  But  most  interpreters  prefer 
the  obvious  construction,  which  supposes  they  and  them  to  have  the 
same  antecedent,  and  the  clause  to  give  the  reason  not  for  their  fearing 
but  for  their  desiring  to  arrest  him.  They  desired  it  because  they 
understood  the  parable  as  pointed  at  themselves;  but  because  they 
were  afraid  of  the  people,  they  deferred  the  execution  of  their  pur- 
pose and  apparently  left  him  to  return  no  more.  Went  their  way,  as 
usual,  means  nothing  more  than  went  away. 

13.  And  they  send  unto  him  certain  of  the  Pharisees 
and  of  the  Herodians,  to  catch  him  in  (his)  words. 

But  although  thus  foiled  in  their  direct  attempt  to  silence  him? 
they  lose  no  time  in  aiming  at  the  same  end  by  a  more  insidious 
method,  all  the  parties  hostile  to  him  coalescing  for  a  momentina  joint 
and  several  effort  to  destroy  his  popularity  and  influence,  by  setting 
him  at  variance  either  with  the  Roman  government  or  Jewish  people. 
The  means  emplo3'ed  for  this  end  was  a  series  of  entangling  questions 
upon  difficult  and  controverted  points,  both  doctrinal  and  practical,  to 
which  it  seemed  impossible  for  him  to  return  any  answer  that 
would  not  commit  him  in  the  eyes  of  some  important  party.  This 
design  is  apparent  from  the  coalition  of  two  adverse  sects  or  parties  in 
the  first  attack,  the  Pharisees,  or  bigoted  opponents  of  all  heathenish 
and  foreign  domination,  and  the  Herodians,  or  followers  of  Herod,  who 
sustained  him  as  the  instrument  and  vassal  of  the  Romans.  This 
unnatural  alliance  between  parties  diametrically  opposite  in  principle 
was  caused  by  their  common  hostility  to  Christ,  whose  growing 
influence  was  far  more  dangerous  to  both  than  either  could  be  to  the 
other.  By  combining,  too,  they  seemed  to  render  his  escape  impossible, 
as  any  answer  which  would  satisfy  the  one  side  must  of  course  afford 
a  ground  of  opposition  to  the  other.  Of  this  crafty  and  unprincipled 
contrivance,  on  the  part  of  men  whose  only  bond  of  union  was  their 
hatred  of  our  Lord  and  their  desire  to  destroy  him,  it  might  well  be 
said  that  their  design  was  to  catch  him,  as  a  bird  is  caught  in  fowling, 
hy  a  worH.  i.  e.  by  a  perplexing  question,  or,  as  some  explain  it,  by  an 
unguarded  answer. 

14.  And  when  tliey  were  come,  they  say  nnto  him, 

Master,  we  know  that  thou  art  true,  and  carest  for  no 

man  ;   for  thou  regardest   not   the   person  of  men,   but 

teachest  the  way  of  God  in  truth.     Is  it  lawful  to  give 

tribute  to  Cesar,  or  not  ? 

And  they  coming  say  to  him,  their  first  words  being  not  a  peremp- 
tory challenge,  as  in  the  preceding  case  (11,  27),  but  a  flattering  address 
intended  to  allay  suspicion  and  conceal  their  real  purpose,  so  as  to 
throw  him  off  his  guard  and  make  it  easier  to  entrap  him.  Master,  i.  e. 
Teacher,  ^ce  know,  not  necessarily  a  false  profession,  since  the  charac- 
ter here  ascribed  to  Christ  was  not  only  true  but  universally  ackuow- 


MARK  12,  14.  325 

ledj^ed.  True,  i.  e.  honest,  candid,  truthful,  one  who  spoke  the  truth 
without  rep;ard  to  consequences.  Carest  for  no  man,  in  the  Greek  a 
double  negative,  as  usual  enforcing  the  negation  (see  above,  on  5,  37.) 
It  does  not  concern  thee  about  no  man.  The  impersonal  verb  is  that 
employed  above  in  4,  38,  and  there  explained.  What  they  here  ascribe 
to  him  is  not  indifference  or  unconcern  as  to  the  welfare  of  others,  but 
independence  of  their  influence  and  authority,  as  motives  for  suppress- 
ing an  unwelcome  truth.  The  flattery  here  lies,  not  in  the  falsehood 
or  extravagance  of  the  description,  but  in  the  honesty  with  which  they 
seem  to  comprehend  themselves  among  those  for  whom  he  did  not  care 
in  the  sense  above  explained.  As  if  they  had  said,  we  come  to  you  not 
only  as  a  wise  and  famous  teacher,  but  because  we  know  that  you  will 
tell  us  to  our  faces  what  you  think,  without  considering  how  it  will 
affect  us.  Begard.est  not  the  person,  literally  dost  not  looh  into  the  face 
(or  at  the  outward  appearance)  of  men,  i.  e.  art  not  influenced  by  any 
difference  of  rank,  position,  wealth,  or  power,  a  regard  to  which  in  the 
administration  of  justice  was  forbidden  in  the  law  of  Moses  as  respect 
of  persons  or  judicial  partialit}'.  (See  Lev.  19, 15.  Deut.  1, 17.  16.  19, 
and  compare  Prov.  24,  23.  28,  21.)  The  same  thing  is  here  denied  of 
Christ,  not  as  a  judge,  but  as  a  teacher.  In  truth  or  of  a  truth,  i.  e. 
truly,  really,  sincerely,  without  any  such  reserves  or  personal  regards  as 
those  just  mentioned.  Such  adulation  has  blinded  the  eyes  and  M'arped 
the  judgment  of  its  thousands  and  its  tens  of  thousands  among  human 
sages,  and  especially  of  those  who  glory  in  their  insusceptibility  of 
flattery.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  these  crafty  casuists  and 
politicians,  who  regarded  Jesus  as  a  mere  man,  though  an  eminently 
wise  and  good  one,  should  have  hoped  to  find  him  as  susceptible  of 
flattery  as  others.  Having  thus  prepared  the  way  for  their  ensuing 
question,  they  at  length  propound  it,  in  a  very  categorical  and  simple 
form.  Is  it  lawful,  is  it  right,  not  in  itself  or  in  the  abstract,  but  for 
us  as  members  of  the  chosen  people,  subjects  of  a  theocracy  (see  above, 
on  2,  21.  26.  3,  4.  6,  18.  10,  2),  to  que  tribute,  literally  census,  one  of 
the  Latin  words  embedded  in  the  Greek  of  Mark  (see  above,  on  6,  27), 
strictly  meaning  an  enrollment  of  the  people  and  assessment  of  their 
property  with  a  view  to  taxation  (compare  Lake  2,  1-5),  but  also  used 
in  the  secondary  sense  of  the  tax  itself,  here  distinguished  as  a  Roman 
not  a  Jewish  impost  by  the  Latin  word  applied  to  it  and  by  the  express 
mention  of  the  taxing  power.  Cesar,  a  surname  of  the  Julian  family 
at  Rome,  inherited  from  Julius  Caesar  by  his  grand  nephew  and  adopted 
son,  Octavius  or  Augustus,  the  first  emperor  of  Ronte,  was  afterwards 
transmitted  through  the  line  of  his  successors,  not  only  those  who  were 
connected  with  his  family,  but  those  exalted  by  a  popular  or  military 
nomination.  It  is  here  applied  abstractly  to  the  office,  or  rather  to  the 
actual  incumbent,  Tiberius,  the  step-son  and  successor  of  Augustus,  who 
reigned  from  the  14th  to  the  o7th  year  of  the  Christian  ei-a.  It  is  not 
however  in  his  personal  capacity,  but  as  the  representative  of  Roman 
power,  that  he  is  here  mentioned.  Or  7iot  ?  an  artful  presentation  of 
the  question  as  requiring  a  direct  and  categorical  solution,  without 
qualifications  or  distinctions,  but  as  we  say  in  English,  "  Yeaor7iay?  " 


326  MARK  12,  15. 

15.  Shall  we  give,  or  sliall  we  not  give  ?  But  he, 
knoAviiig  their  hjpocris}",  said  unto  them.  Why  temj)t  ye 
me  ?  bring  me  a  penny,  that  I  may  see  (it.) 

May  we  give,  or  may  ice  not  give  ?  the  form  of  the  Greek  verb  being 
not  future  but  subjunctive  and  indefinite.  It  is  therefore  really  another 
form  of  the  preceding  question,  not  a  second  one  consequent  upon  it,  as 
the  En2;lish  version  seems  to  intimate.  1.  Is  it  lawful?  2.  Shall  we 
do  it  ?  for  a  thing  may  be  lawful  and  yet  not  expedient  or  binding. 
(Compare  1  Cor.  6, 12,  10,  23.)  But  in  Greek  no  such  distinction  is 
expressed  or  suggested,  but  a  simple  repetition  of  the  same  inquiry  in  a 
different  and  more  laconic  form,  thus  rendering  it  still  more  categorical 
and  peremptory,  as  admitting  of  no  answer  but  a  simple  affirmation  or 
negation.  While  the  preamble  to  the  question,  therefore,  was  adapted 
to  conciliate  and  prepossess  an  ordinary  wise  man,  the  question  itself 
was  so  framed  as  almost  to  extort  a  categorical  and  therefore  compro- 
mising answer.  But  he  with  whom  they  had  to  deal  saw  not  only 
through  their  question  but  themselves,  and  shaped  his  course  accord- 
ingly, so  as  at  one  stroke  to  solve  the  difficulty  and  defeat  their  malice. 
Knowing  (or  according  to  some  copies,  seeing)  their  hypocrisy^  the 
part  which  they  were  acting  (see  above,  on  7,  6),  but  here  from  the 
connection  necessarily  suggesting  the  idea  of  dissimulation,  false  pre- 
tences, which  we  commonly  attach  to  the  derivative  in  English.  Why 
tempt  ye  me  ?  not  why  entice  me  into  sin,  which  is  the  ordinary  sense 
of  tempting  (see  above,  on  1,  13),  but  why  do  you  try  me,  prove  me, 
put  me  to  the  test,  which  is  its  primary  and  proper  import.  (See  above, 
on  8, 11.  10,  2.)  Then,  instead  of  answering  i7i  thesi,  as  they  evidently 
wished  and  expected,  he  gives  a  striking  popularity  and  vividness  to 
what  he  is  about  to  say,  by  addressing  it  not  only  to  the  ears  but  to 
the  eyes  of  those  about  him.  Bring  me  a  j^emiy,  a  denarius,  another 
of  Mark's  Latin  words,  denoting  a  silver  coin  in  common  circulation 
since  the  Koman  conquest,  worth  from  fifteen  to  seventeen  cents  of  our 
money,  but  here  mentioned  not  with  any  reference  whatever  to  its 
value,  but  as  the  tribute  money  {coiii  of  the  cejisus  or  taxation)  as  it  is 
expressed  in  Matthew  (22, 19.)  That  I  may  see  (it),  is  almost  sarcas- 
tic, for  though  he  did  desire  and  intend  to  see  it,  j'et  the  words,  if 
seriously  understood,  seem  to  imply  that  he  had  never  done  so,  and 
expected  to  derive  some  information  from  an  inspection  of  the  coin 
itself  But  this  was  no  doubt  understood  by  all  about  him  as  a  sort 
of  grave  rebuking  iron}'-,  intended  to  disclose  his  knowledge  of  their 
secret  motives,  and  his  scorn  of  their  hypocrisy,  in  raising  such  an 
abstract  question  on  a  point  decided  by  their  every-day  transactions  in 
the  way  of  business.  As  if  he  had  said,  'What !  are  j'ou  required  to 
pay  taxes  to  the  Romans  ?  And  in  what  coin  ?  I^et  me  see  one ' — 
thus  attracting  the  attention  of  all  present  to  the  question,  and  prepar- 
ing them  to  understand  his  memorable  answer. 

16.  And  they  brought  (it.)     And  he  saith  unto  them, 


MARK  12,  16.  17.  327 


"Whose  (is)  tliis  image  and  snperscription  ?     And  tliey  said 
unto  liim,  Cesar's. 

And  they  (either  those  who  put  the  question  or  some  others  pres- 
ent) hroiight  (it.)  We  may  now  conceive  of  him  as  holding  the  de- 
narius in  his  hand,  or  displaying  it  to  those  around,  as  if  it  had  been 
something  new,  thus  still  more  exciting  curiosity  and  gradually  open- 
ing the  way  for  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  which  had  been  suggested. 
Whose  is  this  image  and  inscriiJtion  f  referring  to  the  well-known 
head  and  title  of  the  emperor  by  which  the  money  was  authenticated 
as  a  legal  tender.  As  if  he  had  continued  in  the  same  tone  as  before, 
'  See,  this  money  has  a  man's  head  and  a  man's  name  stamped  upon  it ; 
what  does  this  mean  1  who  is  this,  here  represented  both  in  words 
and  figures  ? '  The  inevitable  answer.  Cesar'^s^  may  to  some  have  sug- 
gested, at  least  vaguely  and  obscurely,  the  solution  just  about  to  be 
expressed  in  words,  while  others,  perhaps  most,  still  continued  in  sus- 
pense, until  the  words  were  uttered. 

17.  And  Jesns  answering,  said  nnto  them,  Render  to 
Cesar  the  things  that  are  Cesar's,  and  to  God  the  things 
that  are  God's.     And  they  marvelled  at  him. 

The  first  words  of  this  verse  are  not  to  be  slurred  over  as  mere  eJc- 
pletives  or  words  of  course,  but  read  with  great  deliberation  and  strong 
emphasis.  And  Jesus  (having  thus  directed  attention  to  the  captious 
and  unreasonable  nature  of  the  question,  not  evading  it,  but)  ansicer- 
ing  (at  last)  said  unto  them,  i.  e.  directly  to  his  tempters,  as  a  solution 
of  their  abstract  question,  but  at  the  same  time  through  them  and  as 
it  were  over  their  heads,  to  the  surrounding  masses,  as  a  practical 
direction  or  a  rule  of  (\.\\tj.  Bender  (return,  pay  back)  the  {tilings) 
of  Cesar  to  Cesar,  and  the  {tilings)  of  Cod  to  Cod,  a  collocation  more 
emphatic  (though  identical  in  meaning)  than  the  one  in  the  transla- 
tion, as  it  places  last  in  either  clause,  not  the  thing  to  be  paid  but  the 
person  to  receive  it.  Some  attach  to  the  Greek  verb  the  diluted  sense 
of  simply  giving  out  or  pa3ang,  but  the  strong  sense  of  paying  back, 
restoring,  correctly  though  not  clearly  enough  given  in  our  version,  is 
not  only  permitted  by  the  etymolo2:y  and  favoured  by  the  usage  of  the 
word  (compare  Matt.  5.  26.  33.  6.  4.  18,  25.  20,  8.  Luke  4,  20.  9,  42. 
19,  8.  Rom.  12, 17.  13,  7.  1  Th.  5,  15.  1  Pet,  3,  9),  but  required  by  the 
whole  connection  and  essential  to  the  full  force  of  our  Saviour's 
answer.  Of  the  numerous  specific  senses  jDut  upon  that  answer  there 
are  probably  but  two  exegetically  possible  and  yet  essentially  unlike. 
The  first  of  these  supposes  Christ  to  represent  the  two  things  as  en- 
tirely distinct  and  independent  of  each  other,  belonging  to  excentric 
incommensurable  spheres,  and  therefore  not  to  be  reduced  to  any 
common  principle  or  rule.  As  if  he  had  said.  Pay  your  taxes  and 
perform  your  religious  duties,  but  do  not  mix  the  two  together  or  at- 
tempt to  bring  them  either  into  conflict  or  agreement ;  for  they  really 
belong  to  different  worlds  or  systems,  and  have  nothing  common  or 


328  MARK  12,  17.  18. 

alike  by  which  they  can  even  be  compared.  This  paradoxical  inter- 
pretation would  deserve  no  notice  had  it  not  been  gravely  urged  by 
one  of  the  most  celebrated  modern  German  writers.  The  other  exe- 
getical  hypothesis  supposes  Christ  to  say  precisely  the  opposite  of  this, 
to  wit,  that  the  two  duties  are  in  perfect  harmony  and  rest  on  one  and 
the  same  principle.  Within  this  general  hypothesis,  however,  there 
are  several  gradations  or  distinct  forms  of  opinion  as  to  the  principle 
here  laid  down.  Without  enumerating  all  these,  it  will  be  suflBcient 
to  state  two,  the  lowest  and  the  highest,  which  can  be  reduced  to  this 
class.  The  former  understands  our  Lord  as  rather  distinguishing  the 
two  obligations,  but  affirming  their  consistency  and  equal  obligation, 
when  they  are  not  in  collision.  The  latter  understands  him  as  iden- 
tifying both  as  parts  of  one  and  the  same  S3'stem,  as  if  he  had  said, 
your  civil  duties  are  but  parts  of  your  religious  duties.  By  rendering 
to  Cesar  what  is  his  you  render  unto  God  what  is  his.  But  the  ques- 
tion still  remains,  what  doctrine  did  he  teach  as  to  the  lloman  domi- 
nation and  the  duty  of  the  Jews  while  under  it?  The  most  approved 
and  prevalent  opinion  is  that  in  accordance  with  the  maxim  of  Mai- 
monides  and  other  rabbins,  he  regards  the  circulation  of  the  coin  of 
any  sovereign  as  a  practical  proof  that  his  sovereignty  not  only  exists 
but  is  submitted  to.  So  long  as  the  Jews  submitted  to  the  Romans 
and  enjoyed  their  protection  they  were  not  only  authorized  but  bound 
to  pay  for  the  advantage.  Others  make  the  prominent  idea  that  of 
penal  visitation,  or  subjection  to  the  Romans  as  a  punishment  of  sin. 
The  other-  precept,  render  unto  God,  &c.,  is  understood  according  to 
these  dilTerent  hypotheses  as  meaning  either,  give  your  souls  or  your- 
selves (which  bear  his  image)  back  to  him  by  faithful  service  or  by 
true  repentance,  as  you  give  back  to  the  emperor  in  tribute  the  coin 
which  he  circulates  among  you.  All  these  constructions  seem  to  me 
too  artificial,  and  the  only  satisfactory  one  that  which  understands  our 
Lord  as  first  suggesting  by  the  very  aspect  of  the  coin  that  they  were 
under  obligations  to  the  civil  power,  and  then  reminding  them  that  till 
these  came  in  conflict  with  religious  obligations  they  were  no  less 
binding.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  Yes,  if  you  are  actually  under  Roman 
domination,  j^et  allowed  to  serve  God  in  the  way  of  his  appointment, 
and  indeed  protected  in  that  service,  j'ou  are  bound  to  pay  back  what 
you  thus  receive,  but  no  such  obligations  can  destroy  those  which  you 
owe  to  God  himself,  or  suspend  them  when  they  come  in  competition. 
In  a  word,  repay  to  Cesar  what  he  gives  you,  and  to  God  the  infinitely 
greater  gifts  which  you  receive  from  him.' 

18.  Then   come  unto  him   the  Sadducees,  which  say 
there  is  no  resurrection ;  and  they  asked  him,  saying — 

Also  come  the  Sadducees  to  him,  after  the  discomfiture  of  the  Iler- 
odians  and  Pharisees.  This  does  not  seem  to  have  been  prompted  by 
the  same  motive  with  the  iirst  attack,  but  rather  by  a  frivolous  desire 
to  ridicule  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  the  denial  of  which  is  else- 
where mentioned  as  a  characteristic  of  the  party  (compare  Acts  23,  0.) 


MARK  12,  18-23.  329 

Those  saying  (teaching  or  maintaining)  a  resurrection  not  to  lie. 
Asked  (questioned,  catechized)  Mm^  saying^  what  is  recorded  in  v. 
23,  the  four  intervening  verses  being  a  preamble  or  a  statement  of  the 
case  on  which  the  question  was  founded. 

19.  Master,  Moses  wrote  imto  us,  If  a  man's  brother 
die,  and  leave  (his)  wife  (behind  him),  and  leave  no  chil- 
dren, that  his  brother  should  take  his  wife,  and  raise  up 
seed  unto  his  brother. 

Master  (Teacher),  the  same  form  of  address  with  that  in  v.  14,  ad- 
mitting his  authority  as  a  religious  teacher,  if  not  as  a  prophet.  Moses 
lorote  to  ics  may  either  mean  prescribed  to  us,  enjoined  upon  us.  or  be  an 
ellipsis  or  contraction  of  the  phrase  in  10,  5,  wrote  tis  a  commandment. 
The  law  referred  to  is  in  Deut.  25,  5-10,  and  was  a  temporary  regula- 
tion intended,  like  some  other  provisions  of  the  law  (e.  g.  Lev.  25,  13. 
Num.  36,  4.  7)  to  keep  the  tribes  and  families  of  Israel  as  far  as  pos- 
sible in  statu  quo^  during  the  period  of  national  independence.  After 
the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes  and  the  return  of  Judah  from  cap- 
tivity, the  reasons  for  this  singular  provision  were  no  longer  in  exist- 
ence, at  least  in  the  same  degree,  and  there  is  very  little  probability 
that  it  was  still  observed.  This,  with  the  extravagance  of  the  case 
here  stated,  makes  it  highly  probable  that  it  is  not  a  real  but  a  ficti- 
tious one,  invented  for  the  purpose  of  casting  ridicule  upon  the  resur- 
rection, or  as  some  suppose  a  well-known  argument  in  the  dispute 
between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees. 

20.  21.  22.  Now  there  were  seven   brethren,  and  the 

first  took  a  wife,  and  dying  left  no  seed.     And  the  second 

took  her,  and  died,  neither  left  he  any  seed,  and  the  third 

likewise.     And  the  seven  had  her,  and  left  no  seed ;  last 

of  all  the  woman  died  also. 

The  technical  formality  with  which  the  case  is  stated  may  belong 
to  the  usage  of  the  Jewish  schools,  analogous  to  the  modern  practice, 
when  a  question  is  submitted  for  professional  opinion.  Or  the  prolix 
repetition  may  have  been  intended  to  enhance  the  ridicule  of  the  sup- 
posed case.  Had  in  v.  22  is  not  the  verb  so  rendered  in  the  next 
verse,  but  the  one  which  properly  means  tooh.  and  is  so  translated  in 
vs.  20.  21. 

23.  In  the  resurrection,  therefore,  when  they  shall 
rise,  whose  wife  shall  she  be  of  them  1  for  the  seven  had 
her  to  w^ife. 

This  is  the  question  growing  out  of  the  case  previously  stated.  It 
is  not  like  that  of  the  Herodians  and  Pharisees,  adapted  and  intended 
to  entangle  or  embroil  him  with  the  government  or  people,  but  a  mere 


330  MARK  12,  24-26. 

puzzle,  or  at  most  a  grave  scoff  at  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  as 
involving  such  absurdities  of  theory  and  inconveniences  of  practice. 

24.  And  Jesus  answering  said  unto  tliera,  Do  ye  not 
tlierefore  err,  because  ye  know  not  the  scriptures,  neither 
"  the  power  of  God  ? 

Therefore^  literally, /or  this,  on  account  of  this,  referring  to  what 
follows.  '  Is  not  this  the  cause  of  3'our  mistake,  that  you  do  not 
know,'  &.C.  Err^  wander  from  the  truth  and  from  right  reason.  Not 
Jcnowing  the  scrijytures,  either  in  the  sense  of  not  being  familiar  even 
with  the  letter  of  their  teachings  on  this  subject,  or  more  probably  in 
that  of  not  correctly  understanding  what  they  did  know  as  to  its  ex- 
ternal form.  The  two  things  which  he  cliarges  them  with  not  know- 
ing are.  what  God  had  taught,  and  what  God  could  do. 

26.  For  when  they  shall  rise  from  the  dead,  they  nei- 
ther marrv  nor  are  s'iven  in  niarriai>:e,  but  are  as  the 
angels  which  are  in  lieaven. 

When  they  rise,  not  the  woman  and  her  seven  husbands,  as  in  v. 
23,  but  men  in  general,  the  dead,  as  appears  from  the  general  form  of 
the  ensuing  proposition.  Neither  marry  nor  are  married  (or  given  in 
marriage),  a  sort  of  proverbial  expression  expressing  the  same  act  or 
contract  with  respect  to  the  two  sexes  or  the  two  parties  in  each  case 
of  marriage  (compare  the  compound  form  in  Matt.  24,  38.  Luke  17, 
27.  1  Cor.  7,  38.)  As  (or  like)  angels  in  heaven,  i.  e.  immortal,  and 
therefore  not  dependent  upon  reproduction  for  the  preservation  of  their 
species.  Some  construe  the  clause,  are  in  heaven  like  the  angeJs  ;  but 
the  words  relate  to  their  condition  upon  earth,  not  in  the  resurrection- 
state,  or  the  period  which  follows  that  event,  but  at  the  very  time  of 
its  occurrence. 

26.  And  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  rise  ;  have  ye 
not  read  in  tlie  book  of  Moses,  liow  in  the  bush  God 
spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  (am)  the  God  of  Abraham,  and 
the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  ? 

Tovching  (about,  concerning)  the  dead,  that  they  do  (i.  e.  are  to) 
rise.  As  to  the  truth  or  the  doctrine  that  the  dead  rise,  Have  you 
■not  read,  or  did  you  never  read,  as  in  v.  10.  Tlie  hooh  of  Moses,  i.  e. 
the  Pentateuch  or  Law,  which  is  not  made  up  of  distinct  compositions, 
but  was  continuously  M'ritten,  and  is  really  one  whole,  the  subdivisions 
being  merely  mechanical  and  for  convenience,  which  accounts  for  the 
five  books  having  now  no  titles  in  the  Hebrew  text,  but  being  desig- 
nated by  initial  words  and  phrases.  In  the  bush  may  either  designate 
the  place  where  the  words  were  originally  uttered,  or  the  portion  of 
the  Pentateuch  in  which  they  are  recorded  (viz.  Ex.  3,  G),  according  to 


MARK  12,  26.  27.  331 


an  ancient  method  of  citation  which  occurs  occasionally  even  in  the 
classics  (e.  g.  Pliny  says  in  plumbo  when  referring  to  his  chapter  upon 
lead),  and  as  some  think  in  another  passage  of  this  gospel  (see  above, 
on  2,  26.)  This  citation  takes  for  granted  the  Mosaic  origin  and  divine 
authority  of  the  writing  from  which  it  is  derived.  From  our  Lord's 
selecting  such  a  passage  rather  than  others  in  the  later  scriptures  which 
appear  more  pertinent  and  cogent  (e.  g.  Isai.  26, 19.  Ez.  37, 1-10)  Ter- 
tulhan  and  Jerome  inferred  that  the  Sadducees  acknowledged  only  the 
five  books  of  Moses,  which  was  long  the  prevalent  belief;  but  in  our 
day  the  most  competent  authorities  deny  that  there  is  any  ground  for 
this  opinion,  and  allege  that  the  Sadducees  differed  from  the  Pharisees, 
not  as  to  the  canon  of  scripture,  but  only  as  to  the  traditional  or  oral 
law  (see  above,  on  7,  3.) 

27.  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the 
living :  ye  therefore  do  greatly  err. 

Two  objections,  not  without  some  colour,  have  been  made  to  the  va- 
lidity of  this,  considered  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  resurrection. 
The  first  is,  that  the  declaration  in  the  passage  cited  seems  to  mean  no 
more  than  that  he  who  had  been  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Ja- 
cob, would  still  be  the  God  of  their  descendants,  which  would  be  no  less 
true  if  the  patriarchs  had  ceased  to  exist.  The  other  is,  that  even  if  it 
necessarily  assumes  their  continued  existence,  it  only  proves  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  and  not  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Various 
attempts  have  been  made  to  meet  this  difficulty,  by  alleging  for  exam- 
ple that  as  man  consists  of  soul  and  body,  their  reunion  is  implied  or 
ensured  by  the  fact  that  God  is  still  their  God ;  or  by  assuming  that 
the  declaration  cited  has  respect  to  a  covenant  represented  as  still  valid, 
and  therefore  implying  the  continued  existence  of  the  souls,  and  the 
future  reunion  of  the  souls  and  bodies  of  the  human  parties  to  that 
covenant.  But  all  such  explanations  lay  the  chief  stress  upon  some- 
thing not  spoken  of  at  all,  either  in  the  original  passage  or  in  Christ's 
citation  and  interpretation  of  it.  Perhaps  the  simplest  and  most  satis- 
factory solution  of  the  difficulty  is,  that  this  is  not  an  argument  at  all, 
but  an  authoritative  declaration  of  the  truth.  Our  Lord  must  then  be 
understood,  not  as  saying  that  they  ought  to  have  known  this  doctrine 
to  be  taught  in  that  familiar  passage,  but  as  telling  them  that  this, 
though  not  its  obvious,  is  its  real  meaning.  '  Did  you  never  read  that 
gracious  declaration  of  the  Lord  to  Moses,  in  which  he  describes  him- 
self as  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ?  Well,  to  you  that  may 
seem  to  be  a  mere  reminiscence  of  the  past ;  but  I  can  tell  you  that 
the  patriarchs  are  there  referred  to,  not  as  persons  who  exist  no  longer, 
nor  even  as  disembodied  spirits,  but  as  living  men,  possessed  of  souls 
and  bodies,  whose  God  Jehovah  is  to  be  forever,  a  relation  partially 
suspended  for  the  present  by  the  separation  of  these  parts,  but  hereafter 
to  be  fully  reinstated  by  the  resurrection  and  redemption  of  the  body. 
In  your  interpretation  of  such  scriptures,  and  in  your  rejection  of  this 
doctrine,  ye  do  therefore  greatly  err?     This  view  of  the  matter,  while 


332  M  A  R  K  12,  27.  28. 

it  does  away  with  the  necessity  of  all  abstruse  and  recondite  construc- 
tions, answers  every  necessary  purpose ;  for  the  context  and  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  are  as  fully  satisfied  by  an  authoritative  declaration 
as  they  would  be  by  a  formal  demonstration,  since  in  either  case  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  confirmed  by  the  highest  possible  au- 
thority, the  only  difference  between  them  being  that  our  Lord,  upon 
the  supposition  here  proposed,  instead  of  arguing  the  point,  simply 
states  the  conclusion,  thus  teaching  with  authority  and  not  as  the 
scribes  (see  above,  on  1,  22),  who,  as  we  learn  from  Luke  (20, 39. 40), 
were  both  satisfied  and  silenced  by  this  unexpected  answer. 

28.  And  one  of  the  scribes  came,  and  having  heard 
them  reasoning  together,  and  perceiving  that  he  had  an- 
swered them  well,  asked  him,  Which  is  the  first  com- 
mandment of  all  ? 

This  may  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  an  attack  from  a  third  quarter ; 
but  not  only  were  the  scribes  for  the  most  part  Pharisees  (see  above, 
on  2, 16);  but  Matthew  (22.  34.  35)  says  expressly  that  this  one  was  a 
lawyer  fro7n  among  tliern^  who  acted  as  their  spokesman,  on  their  re- 
assembling after  the  discomfiture  of  the  Sadducecs.  It  is  therefore  a 
renewal  of  the  first  assault  (vs.  13-17),  but  in  a  less  insidious  form,  and 
by  a  less  prejudiced  and  hostile  agency,  yet  still  with  the  design  of 
tempting  i.  e.  trying  him  (Matt.  22,  35.)  The  way  in  which  the  two 
accounts  complete  each  other  as  to  this  point,  although  perfectly  fa- 
miliar to  our  courts  of  justice,  is  of  course  regarded  by  some  peda- 
gogues and  pedants  as  a  glaring  contradiction,  which  it  is  uncandid  and 
unreasonable  either  to  deny  or  to  attempt  to  harmonize.  Tliis  scribe 
had  been  a  witness  of  the  previous  conversation,  and  was  no  doubt  one 
of  those  whom  Luke  describes  as  applauding  our  Lord's  answer  to  the 
Sadducees.  While  Matthew  therefore  represents  him  as  a  tempter  in 
the  sense  before  explained  (see  above,  on  8,  11.  10,  2.  12, 15)  and  as 
the  spokesman  of  the  Pharisees,  Mark,  with  perfect  consistency,  gives 
prominent  relief  to  his  personal  respect  for  Christ  and  his  real  curiosity 
to  hear  his  judgment  on  the  subject  here  propounded.  ^Mlat  (or  what 
kiud  of)  commandment,  as  the  first  word  stiictly  means,  though  often 
used  for  mere  numerical  distinction  (see  above,  on  11,  28.)  All,  in  the 
oldest  copies,  is  masculine  or  neuter,  and  cannot  therefore  be  grammati- 
cally construed  with  commatidment  n^hwi  with  ^/a'y/^i^  understood,  form- 
ing a  sort  of  superlative  comi)om\(\., Jirst-of-all.  First,  i.e.  in  impor- 
tance and  binding  force.  This  is  said  to  be  an  old  rabbiuical  dispute, 
still  extant  in  the  Jewish  books.  The  trial  (or  temptation)  here  in- 
volved no  risk  (as  in  the  joint  demand  of  the  Herodians  and  Pharisees), 
but  only  a  dissent  from  one  of  the  contending  parties,  and  a  loss  of 
reputation  as  a  wise  expounder  of  the  laws,  if  not  a  suspicion  of  grave 
error  in  preferring  certain  precepts  to  all  others. 

29.  30.  31.  And  Jesus  answered  him,  The  first  of  all  the 


MARK   12,  29-31.  333 


commandments  (is),  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is 
one  Lord ;  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind, 
and  with  all  thy  strength  :  this  (is)  the  lii-st  command- 
ment. And  the  second  (is)  like,  (namely)  this.  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  There  is  none  other  com- 
mandment greater  than  these. 

These  snares  our  Lord  avoids  by  stating  in  reply,  not  a  precept  of 
the  decalogue,  or  any  other  one  commandment  of  the  law,  but  its  com- 
prehensive summary  in  Deut.  6,  4.  5  and  Lev.  19, 18,  the  former  passage 
summing  up  the  first  and  the  latter  the  second  table.  By  this  admira- 
ble answer,  he  avoids  the  inconveniences  attending  a  more  specific  one, 
and  at  the  same  time  turns  away  the  thoughts  of  those  who  heard 
him  from  unprofitable  subtleties  to  fundamental  principles  of  the  high- 
est practical  importance.  Instead  of  singling  out  particular  command- 
ments as  entitled  to  the  preference,  he  gives  the  first  and  second  place 
to  two  contained  in  scripture  and  preceptive  in  their  form,  yet  compre- 
hending all  the  rest,  and  at  the  same  time  setting  forth  the  true  princi- 
ple of  action,  to  which  all  obedience  owes  its  value  and  its  very  being. 
The  first  quotation  is  the  famous  Shema  of  the  Jewish  worship,  so 
called  from  its  first  word  {Tq'p)  meaning  liear^  and  constantly  repeated 
as  a  sort  of  creed  or  summary  of  all  religion.  There  is  no  need  of  at- 
tempting any  nice  distinction  between  heart  and  soul  and  mind,  the 
obvious  design  of  the  accumulated  synonymes  being  to  exhaust  the  one 
idea  of  the  whole  man  with  all  his  powers  and  affections.  This  like- 
wise renders  unimportant  the  additions  made  to  the  original,  either  in 
the  Septuagint  or  the  gospel,  and  the  variations  of  existing  manuscripts, 
since  none  of  these  diversities  or  changes  have  the  least  effect  upon  the 
main  idea  of  supreme  love  to  God  and  disinterested  love  to  man.  Self- 
love,  as  being  an  original  principle  of  our  nature,  and  therefore  not  sub- 
ject to  the  caprices  of  the  will,  is  wisely  made  the  standard  of  men's 
love  to  one  another,  which  would  otherwise  be  ever  sinking  far  below 
the  level  of  our  natural  regard  to  our  own  welfare.  And  (there  is)  a 
second^  like  (or  of  the  same  kind,  namely)  this.  Greater  than  these^ 
other  i^ecept  (or  commandment)  there  is  not.  Of  all  our  Saviour's 
wise  and  happy  answers  to  insidious  or  puzzling  questions,  this  is  the 
most  exquisitely  beautiful,  because  so  unambiguous,  so  simple,  so  ex- 
actly corresponding  to  the  form  of  the  question,  so  evasive  of  its  tri- 
fling and  unprofitable  element,  so  exhaustive  and  demonstrative  of 
\\  hat  was  really  important  in  it,  and  therefore  so  unchangeably  in- 
structive and  so  practically  useful  to  the  end  of  time. 

32.  And  the  scribe  said  unto  him.  Well,  Master,  thou 
hast  said  the  truth  ;  for  there  is  one  God,  and  there  is 
none  other  but  he — 

One  of  the  finest  strokes  in  this  fine  picture,  which  the  sceptical 


334  MARK  12,  32.  83. 

critics  do  their  best  to  neutralize,  if  not  efface,  is  the  effect  produced 
upon  the  scribe  himself,  a  change  of  feeling  altogether  natural  and  easy 
in  a  well-disposed  and  highly  cultivated  mind,  on  finding  unexpectedly 
such  deep  and  clear  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  law,  where  he  had  only 
looked  for  abstruse  subtilty  or  shallow  commonplace.  The  puerile 
idea,  that  one  evangelist  describes  him  all  through  as  an  enemy,  the 
other  as  a  friend,  is  as  worthy  of  its  authors  as  it  is  unworthy  of  the 
subject,  not  only  on  religious  principles,  but  even  on  their  favorite 
ground  of  esthetics  and  psychology.  Nothing  can  be  truer  to  human 
nature  or  in  better  taste  than  the  very  change  of  feeling  which  these 
writers  so  contemptuously  set  aside  as  a  sheer  harmonistical  invention. 
Another  pitiful  failure  of  the  same  school  is  the  effort  to  identify  this 
conversation  with  another  like  it,  but  of  somewhat  earlier  date,  pro- 
served  by  Luke  (10,  25-28),  as  having  given  occasion  to  the  parable  of 
the  good  Samaritan.  If  this  hypothesis,  intended  to  discredit  all  the 
narratives,  as  flowing  from  inconsistent  and  confused  traditions,  requires 
any  other  refutation  than  is  furnished  by  the  palpable  difference  of  text 
and  context,  it  belongs  to  the  exposition  of  that  gospel.  Well  is  not  a 
mere  expletive  or  even  a  connective  similar  to  icJiy  or  so  at  the  begin- 
ning of  a  sentence,  but  an  emphatic  adverb  (as  in  v.  28,  and  in  7,  6.  9. 
37  above)  here  equivalent  to  excellently,  admirabl}'-,  nobly.  Tho^t  hast 
said  the  tnith^  or  more  exactly,  in  (or  icith)  truth  (i.  e.  truly)  thou 
hast  said  J  what  follows  (see  above,  on  v.  14.)  Instead  of  three  de- 
tached clauses,  we  have  then  one  full  one,  well  and  truly  didst  thou  say 
that  (not  for)  there  is  one  (the  latest  critics  omit  God,  which  onl}'' 
makes  the  phrase  still  more  impressive.)  This  refers  to  the  first  words  of 
our  Lord's  quotation,  the  sublime  declaration  of  the  divine  unity,  which 
the  scribe  then  amplifies,  perhaps  with  reference  to  the  first  command- 
ment (Ex.  20,  3.)  Not  only  is  he  one  in  the  sense  of  what  theologians 
call  simplicity,  i.  e.  without  parts,  division,  or  complexity,  but  also  in 
the  negative  exclusive  sen.se  of  onliness,  and  there  is  no  otlier  excei^t  him. 
This  is  far  from  being  a  mere  echo  or  a  vain  repetition  of  the  words  of 
Moses ;  it  is  rather  a  profound  though  simple  comment  on  them,  which 
is  continued  through  the  following  sentence. 


33.  And  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart,  and  with  all 
the  understanding,  and  with  all  the  sonl,  and  with  all  the 
strength,  and  to  love  (his)  neighbour  as  himself,  is  more 
than  all  whole  burnt- offerings  and  sacrifices. 

Here  again,  although  the  scribe  repeats  the  words  which  Christ  had 
quoted,  with  an  unimportant  substitution  of  equivalents  {mind  for  under- 
standing), which  may  possibly  belong  exclusively  to  ^Mark's  report,  it 
is  only  for  the  purpose  of  another  comment  or  addition,  showing  like 
the  first  (in  the  preceding  verse)  a  more  than  ordinary  insight  into  the 
true  sense  and  spirit  of  the  law.  and  a  remarkable  congeniality  with 
Christ's  own  teaching  upon  that  great  subject.  As  before  he  made  the 
unity  of  God  exclusive  of  all  others,  so  he  now  puts  supreme  love  to 


MARK  12,  33.  34.  335 

him  in  its  true  position,  with  respect  to  all  ritual  ohservancos,  not  as  at 
variance  ■with  them,  or  as  superseding  them  so  long  as  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation lasted,  nor  mereh^  as  superior  in  degree  of  dignity  and  value, 
but  as  being  the  soul  or  vital  principle  to  -which  they  owed  whatever 
dignity  or  value  they  possessed,  and  in  default  of  which  they  must  be 
worse  than  worthless.  Burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  are  specific  and 
generic  terms,  the  last  denoting  animal  or  bloody  offerings  in  general, 
the  first  the  olah  or  most  important  species  of  such  ofierings,  in  which 
the  victim  was  entirely  consumed,  and  the  whole  work  of  expiation 
typified.  Animal  oblations  are  exclusively  mentioned,  not  as  such,  but 
as  the  most  important  part  of  the  sacrificial  ritual,  in  which  alone  the 
doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement,  by  the  sacrifice  of  life  for  life,  was 
typified,  the  vegetable  oflierings  being  simply  an  appendage,  a  distinct 
acknowledgment  of  God's  propriety  in  all  his  creatures,  but  apart  from 
the  others,  as  devoid  of  meaning  and  effect  as  when  Cain  offered  fruits 
of  the  earth  in  competition  with  his  brother's  bleeding  victims  (Gen.  4, 
3-5.  Heb.  11,  4.)  The  idea  here  is,  more  (i.  e.  intrinsically  better,  more 
acceptable  to  God,  and  more  useful  to  the  worshipper)  than  all  the 
ceremonies  of  the  law,  considered  in  themselves  and  as  devoid  of  this 
informing  principle. 

34:.  And  when  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered  discreetly, 
he  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  no  man  after  that  durst  ask  him  (any  ques- 
tion.) 

Jesus  seeing  Tiim  that  Tie  ansicered  implies  more  than  is  expressed  in 
the  version  Jesus  sato  that  he  ansicered.  namely,  that  he  saw  his  person 
at  the  same  time  that  he  searched  his  thoughts.  Discreetly^  in  its 
modern  usage,  which  is  almost  wholly  negative,  implying  the  avoidance 
of  all  danger  by  a  wise  precaution,  falls  far  short  of  the  original,  which 
answers  better  to  intelligently^  meaning  strictly  and  according  to  its 
et^'mology,  mind  havingly.  He  answered  as  one  having  voC?,  intelli- 
gence or  intellect,  not  only  as  a  natural  endowment,  but  in  active  exer- 
cise, and  on  the  highest  subjects.  This  high  praise  which,  although 
sufficiently  attested  by  our  Lord's  authority,  is  also  justified  by  what 
is  here  recorded  of  the  man's  own  language  and  deportment,  is  now  fol- 
lowed by  a  still  more  interesting  statement,  namely,  that  he  was  not 
far  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  best  explanation  of  which  language 
is  the  simplest  and  most  obvious,  to  wit,  that  he  was  almost  on  the 
same  ground  with  our  Lord's  disciples.  The  reference  is  not  so  much 
to  moral  dispositions  as  to  intellectual  and  doctrinal  perceptions.  This 
is  no  assurance  that  the  scribe  was  then  a  true  believer  or  would 
finally  be  saved.  It  was  rather  a  warning  to  come  nearer  still  or  rather 
actually  enter,  lest  he  should  have  cause  to  wish  that  he  had  still  re- 
mained afar  off.  There  is  the  same  reticency,  as  to  this  man's  subse- 
quent career,  as  in  the  case  of  the  young  ruler  (see  above,  on  10,  22), 
but  with  far  more  positive  encouragement  to  hope  that   he  was  ulti- 


336  MARK  12,  34-36. 

mately  saved.  Yet  these  are  among  the  very  cases,  of  which  Christ 
himself  said,  that  the  first  would  be  last  and  the  last  first.  CSee  above, 
on  10,  31,  and  compare  ]\latt.  19,  30.  20,  16.  Luke  13.  30.)  '  With  this 
most  interesting  conversation  ends  the  series  of  tentative  interrogations, 
to  which  the  Saviour  was  exposed  in  this  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  a  series 
progressively  diminishing  in  malice  and  in  craft,  until  the  last  interro- 
gator, though  a  Pharisee,  a  Scribe,  and  a  tempter  or  inquisitor,  was 
finally  pronounced  by  Christ  himself  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
thus  bringing  out  as  the  result  of  these  experiments  on  his  capacity  and 
wisdom  as  a  teacher,  the  remarkable  fact  that,  while  the  worst  of  his 
opponents  were  unable  to  convict  him  of  an  error  or  betray  him  into  a 
mistake,  the  best  of  them,  when  brought  into  direct  communication 
with  him  on  the  most  important  subjects,  found  themselves  almost  in 
the  position  of  his  own  disciples.  Under  such  influences,  some  attrac- 
tive and  conciliating,  some  repulsive  and  alarming,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  of  all  our  Lord's  opponents,  whether  more  or  less  malignant  and 
fanatical,  no  one  any  longer  (in  the  Greek  no  longer^  dared  to  question 
him. 

35.  And  Jesns  answered  and  said,  while  lie  taught  in 
the  temple,  How  say  the  scribes  that  Christ  is  the  son  of 
David  ? 

Thus  far  our  Lord's  position  had  been  wholly  a  defensive  one ;  but 
now  he  turns  the  tables  and  asks  a  question  in  his  turn,  not  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  silencing  his  enemies,  but  also  with  a  view  to  the  asser- 
tion of  his  own  claims  as  the  Messiah.  Ansioering,  retorting  their 
interrogations.  While  he  taught^  literally,  teaching,  not  in  private 
conversation,  but  in  the  course  of  his  public  and  official  instructions. 
Jn  the  temple,  i.  e.  in  its  area  or  enclosure  (see  above,  on  v.  11.)  How.^ 
in  what  sense,  upon  what  ground,  or  by  what  authorit)\  &ay.  i.  e. 
officially,  or  ex  cathedra^  here  equivalent  to  teach.  The  scribes^  as  the 
expounders  of  the  law  and  the  religious  teachers  of  the  people  (see 
above,  on  1,  22.  9,  11,  and  comj^are  Matt.  23,  2.)  The  Christ,  the 
Messiah.,  Greek  and  Hebrew  S)'nonymes,  both  meaning  Anointed,  and 
applied  to  the  Prophet,  Priest  and  King  of  Israel,  predicted  by  the 
prophets,  and  expected  b}^  the  people  (sec  above,  on  1,  1.  8,  29.  9,  41.) 
Is,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  or  is  to  he,  in  point  of  fact.  Son, 
descendant,  heir,  of  David,  as  the  first  and  greatest  theocratical  sover- 
eign (see  above  on  10,  47.  11,  10.) 

36."  For  David  himself  said  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  The 
Lord  said  unto  m^^  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till 
I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool. 

For  assigns  the  reason  of  the  question  or  the  ground  of  the  objec- 
tion which  it  states  ;  but  the  latest  critics  have  expunged  the  particle. 
Ill  the  Holy  Spirit,  i.  e.  in  intimate  union  with  and  under  the  control- 


M  A  K  K  12,  36.  337 


ling  influence  of  that  divine  person.  My  Lord,  i.  e.  David's,  as  our 
Saviour  explicitly  declares  in  the  passages  already  cited ;  yet  not  of 
David  merely  as  a  private  person,  nor  even  as  an  individual  king,  but 
as  representing  his  own  royal  race  and  the  house  of  Israel  over  which 
it  reigned.  The  person  thus  described  as  the  superior  and  sovereign 
of  David  and  his  house  and  of  all  Israel,  could  not  possibly  be  David 
himself,  nor  any  of  his  sons  and  successors  except  one  who,  by  virtue 
of  his  twofold  nature,  was  at  once  his  sovereign  and  his  son.  See 
Rom.  1,  3.  4.  That  the  Lord  here  meant  was  universally  identified 
with  the  Messiah  by  the  ancient  Jews,  is  clear,  not  only  from  their 
own  traditions,  but  from  Christ's  assuming  this  interpretation  as  the 
basis  of  his  argument  to  prove  the  Messiah's  superhuman  nature,  and 
from  the  fact  that  his  opponents,  far  from  questioning  this  fact,  were 
unable  to  answer  him  a  word,  and  afraid  to  interrogate  him  further 
(Matt.  22,  46.)  The  original  form  of  expression,  in  the  phrase  Sit  at 
my  right  hand,  is  the  same  as  in  Ps.  109,  31.  A  seat  at  the  right  hand 
of  a  king  is  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  as  a  place  of  honour,  not  arbi- 
trarily, but  as  implying  a  participation  in  his  power,  of  which  the  right 
hand  is  a  constant  symbol.  See  above,  on  Ps.  45,  10  (9),  and  com- 
pare Matt.  19,  28.  The  sitting  posture  is  appropriate  to  kings,  who 
are  frequently  described  as  sitting  on  their  thrones.  (Compare  Ps. 
29,  10.)  In  this  case,  however,  the  posture  is  of  less  moment  than 
the  position.  Hence  Stephen  sees  Christ  standing  at  the  right  hand 
of  God  (Acts  7,  55.  56),  and  Paul  simply  says  he  is  there  (Rom.  8, 
34.)  The  participation  in  the  divine  power,  thus  ascribed  to  the 
Messiah,  is  a  special  and  extraordinary  one,  having  reference  to  the 
total  subjugation  of  his  enemies.  This  idea  is  expressed  by  the  figure 
of  their  being  made  his  footstool,  perhaps  with  allusion  to  the  ancient 
practice  spoken  of  in  Josh.  10,  24.  This  figure  itself,  however,  pre- 
supposes the  act  of  sitting  on  a  throne.  It  does  not  imply  inactivity, 
as  some  suppose,  or  mean  that  Jehovah  would  conquer  his  foes  for 
him,  without  any  intervention  of  his  own.  The  idea  running  through 
the  whole  psalm  is,  that  it  is  in  and  through  him  that  Jehovah  acts  for 
the  destruction  of  his  enemies,  and  that  for  this  very  end  he  is  invested 
with  almighty  power,  as  denoted  by  his  session  at  the  right  hand  of 
God.  This  session  is  to  last  until  the  total  subjugation  of  his  enemies, 
that  is  to  say,  this  special  and  extraordinar}^  power  of  the  Messiah  is 
then  to  terminate,  a  representation  which  agrees  exactly  with  that  of 
Paul  in  1  Cor.  15,  24-28,  where  the  verse  before  us  is  distinctly  refer- 
red to,  although  not  expressly  quoted.  It  is  therefore  needless,  though 
grammatical,  to  give  the  until  an  inclusive  meaning,  namely,  until  then 
and  afterwards,  as  in  Ps.  112,  8,  etc.  This  verse,  it  has  been  said,  is 
more  frequently  quoted  or  referred  to.  in  the  iS^ew  Testament,  than 
any  other  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Besides  the  passages  already  cited,  it 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  those  which  represent  Christ  as  sitting  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father.  See  Matt.  26.  64.  1  Cor.  15,  25.  Eph. 
1,  20-22.  Phil.  2,  9-11.  Heb.  1,  3.  14.  8,  1.  10,  12.  13.  1  Pet.  3,  22, 
and  compare  Rev.  3,  21. 
15 


338  MAEK  12,  37.  38. 

37.  David  therefore  liimself  calleth  liim  Lord,  and 
whence  is  he  (then)  his  son  ?  And  the  common  people 
heard  him  gladly. 

Therefore^  or  so  then.  David  calls  Mm  Lord,  i.  e.  his  own  superior 
or  rather  sovereign.  Whence.,  from  what  source,  or  by  what  means? 
How  is  he  at  once  his  superior  and  inferior,  his  son  and  sovereign  ? 
The  only  key  to  this  enigma  is  the  twofold  nature  of  the  Messiah 
as  taught  even  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  applied  to  the  solution  of 
this  very  question  in  the  beginning  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  (1, 
3.4.)  But  this '  doctrine  had  been  lost  among  the  Jews,  and  more 
especially  among  the  scribes  or  spiritual  leaders,  so  that  to  them  the 
question  was  unanswerable.  They  still  held  fast  however  to  the  doc- 
trine, that  he  was  to  be  the  Son  of  David,  which  indeed  became  a 
reason  for  their  giving  up  the  doctrine  of  his  higher  nature,  as  being 
incompatible  with  what  the  scripture  taught  so  clearly  as  to  his 
descent  and  lineage.  It  is  an  instructive  instance  of  perverted  inge- 
nuity, that  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  modern  German  critics  and 
interpreters  maintains  that  Jesus,  far  from  admitting  that  the  scribes 
were  right  in  making  Christ  the  Son  of  David,  teaches  here  that  he 
was  not !  The  effect  of  this  unanswerable  question  upon  those  to 
whom  it  was  addressed,  or  at  whom  it  was  aimed,  is  said  by  Matthew 
(22,  46)  to  have  been  that  no  one  could  answer  him  a  word,  nor  did 
any  one  dare  from  that  day  any  more  to  question  him.  There  is  of 
course  no  inconsistency  between  this  statement  and  the  one  in  v.  34, 
above,  as  both  occurrences  took  place  upon  the  same  day;  and  as  it  has 
been  well  said,  while  Mark  exhibits  him  as  silencing  their  questions. 
Matthew  goes  further  and  describes  him  as  silencing  their  very 
answers.  On  the  other  hand,  Mark  here  describes  the  impression 
which  his  teaching  made  upon  the  masses.  And  tlie  common 'peo'ple 
(literally,  the  mucli  or  great  crowd)  heard  Mm  gladly,  sweetl}',  pleas- 
antly, with  pleasure  (see  above,  on  6,  20.) 

38.  And  lie  said  unto  them  in  his  doctrine,  Beware  of 
the  scribes,  Avhich  love  to  go  in  long  clothing,  and  (love) 
salutations  in  the  market-places — 

The  contrast,  tacitly  suggested  in  the  verse  preceding,  is  here  car- 
ried out  by  representing  Christ  as  warning  them  (the  crowd  who 
heard  him  gladly)  against  the  scribes  who  would  have  silenced  him. 
In  Ms  doctrine,  in  his  teaching,  as  or  while  he  taught  (see  above,  on 
1,  22. 27.  4,  2. 11,  18.)  Beicare  of,  literally,  see  from,  not  look  away  from, 
but  look  out  from,  be  upon  your  guard  against  (see  above,  on  8.  15.) 
Love,  literally,  will,  choose,  wish,  desii-e.  The  scribes,  those  (loishing), 
admits  of  two  constructions,  one  of  which  supposes  this  to  be  descriptive 
of  the  whole  class  (beware  of  the  sciibes,  for  they  love,  &c.)  the  other 
only  of  a  part  (beware  of  those  scribes  who,  or  such  scribes  as,  desire  &c.) 
The  proximity  of  this  verse  to  the  one  in  which  our  Lord  himself  pro- 


MARK   12.  38.  39.  40.  339 

nonnced  a  scribe  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  seems  to  recom- 
mend the  latter  sense  in  this  place.  He  is  then  to  be  understood  as 
giving  them  a  test  by  which  to  regulate  their  trust  in  their  religious 
teachers.  As  if  he  had  said,  'Some  scribes  are  not  far  from  the 
Messiah's  kingdom,  while  others  have  lost  sight  of  his  divinity ;  in 
order  to  distinguish  between  those  two  classes,  observe  which  are 
proud  and  ostentatious,  selfish  and  ambitious,  in  their  conduct,  and  of 
these  beware.'  Clothing^  clothes,  or  robes,  in  Greek  the  plural  of  a 
noun  originally  meaning  equipment,  fitting  out,  applied  both  to  armour 
and  to  dress,  then  restricted  to  the  latter,  then  confined,  as  dress  in 
English  often  is,  to  the  outer  garment,  robe  or  mantle,  which  in  the 
oriental  costume  is  particularly  full  and  flowing.  To  go,  in  Greek  to 
walk  ahout.  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  needless  locomotion  for  the  pur- 
pose of  display.  Salutations,  formal  ceremonious  compliments,  accord- 
ing to  the  oriental  fashion  in  tiie  marl'et-places,  agora  or  forum,  as  the 
customary  j^laces  of  great  concourse  (see  above,  on  6,  56,  7,  4.) 

39.  And  the  chief  seats  in   the  sjaiagogues,  and  the 
uppermost  rooms  at  feasts. 

As  other  objects  of  desire  and  frivolous  ambition  to  the  baser  sort 
but  probably  the  greater  number  of  the  scribes,  he  names  tlie  Jirst 
scats  (one  Greek  word)  in  the  synagogues,  or  meetings  for  religious 
worship,  the  idea  of  a  building  being  secondary  and  incidental  (see 
above,  on  1,21.  23.  29.  39.  3,1.  6,2.)  Uppei^most  rooms  is  a  Greek 
word  of  the  same  form,  each  being  compounded  of  a  noun  and  the 
ordinal  number  first.  Booms  here  means  places,  as  in  our  familiar 
phrases  meiTce  room,  no  room,  while  in  good  room,  large  room,  and  most 
other  combinations,  it  means  a  chamber  or  apartment  of  a  house, 
which  is  Ihe  meaning  probably  attached  to  it  by  many  English  readers 
both  in  this  and  in  several  other  places  (e.  g.  Lu.  14,  9.)  ,  Even  'places, 
however,  would  not  be  an  adequate  tianslation  here,  the  Greek  word 
meanmg  places  to  recline,  i.  e.  at  table  (see  above,  on  2,  15),  and  the 
whole  phrase  the  most  honourable  or  cons})icuous  of  such  reclining 
places  which,  according  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  usage,  was  the  middle 
place  in  each  triclinium  or  couch  intended  to  be  occupied  by  three. 
Feasts,  suppers,  dinners  (see  above,  on  6,  21.) 

40.  Whicli  devonr  widows'  honses,  and  for  a  pretence 
make  long  prayers  :  these  shall  receive  greater  damnation. 

While  the  preceding  verse  presents  a  lively  but  humiliating  picture 
of  the  vanity  and  levity  of  these  Jewish  clergy  or  religious  teachers, 
that  before  us  adds  a  darker  trait,  belonging  not  to  manners  merely 
but  to  morals,  or  to  mores  in  the  higher  sense.  Those  devouring,  swal- 
lowing up,  consuming,  i.  e.  spending  for  their  own  advantage,  the  houses, 
often  put  for  households,  famihes,  and  by  Xenophon  and  il^llian,  ns  bj'- 
Mark,  Luke  (20,  47),  and  Matthew  (23,  14),  for  the  house  with  its 
contents,  and  so  for  property  in  general.     Of  widoics,  often  mentioned 


340  M  A  E  K  12,  40.  41. 

in  the  Scriptures  as  the  most  defenceless  class  of  poor,  and  therefore 
special  objects  both  of  divine  and  human  pity,  whose  unrighteous  spo- 
liation, whether  fraudulent  or  violent,  is  here  mentioned  as  an  ago;ravat- 
ing  circumstance  attending  the  embezzlements  and  peculations  of  these 
woildly  scribes,  who  may  have  had  peculiar  opportunities  for  such  sins, 
as  expounders  of  the  civil  no  less  than  the  ceremonial  and  the  moral 
law,  or  as  the  ghostly  advisers  of  the  sick  and  dying,  the  executors  of 
their  wills  and  the  guardians  of  their  children,  in  all  which  capacities 
enormous  wickedness  has  been  committed,  since  these  words  were  ut- 
tered, by  a  corrupted  ministry  and  priesthood.     For  ai^vetence  maMng 
long  prayers,  or  more  simply,  in  pretence  (or  as  a  pretext)  praying 
long.     The  only  question  here  is,  whether  these  words  (in  themselves 
perspicuous  enough)  are  to  be  construed  with  the  first  clause,  as  a  fur- 
ther aggravation  of  the  wickedness  there  mentioned  (cloaking   their 
fraud  and  their  extortion  under  unusual  appearances  of  zeal  and  devo- 
tion, and  even  using  these  as  means  to  their  nefarious  ends),  or  to  be 
taken  as  a  new  and  distinct  item  in  the  catalogue  (affecting  such  devo- 
tion  in   pretence,  i.  e.  without  sincerity,  as  hypocrites.)     Both  these 
senses  being  perfectly  appropriate  and  perfectly  consistent,  it  is  better 
as  in  all  such  cases  to  combine  them,  and  to  understand  our  Lord  as 
saj'ing,  that  these  scribes  were  not  only  h3'pocritical  and  ostentatious  in 
their  devotions,  but  employed  this  very  ostentation  and  hypocrisy  as  a 
means  of  enriching  themselves  at  the  expense  of  the  most  helpless 
classes.     So  far   was    their   religious   office   or    profession  from  ex- 
tenuating their  guilt,  that   on  that  very  ground,  as  a  fearful  aggra- 
vation,   these  (pious   sinners)  shall    receive   (not    only   greater,  but) 
more    ahundant   (or    excessive)    judgment    (righteous     retribution), 
which  in  this  case  means  of  course  condemnation,  punishment,  or  exe- 
cution.    By  these  criteria,  which  any  man  was  able  to  apply  without 
much  risk  of  error  or  injustice,  he  taught  the  people  to  distinguish  be- 
tween those  scribes,  probably  the  great  mass,  of  whom  they  must  beware 
or  be  even  on  their  guard,  and  the  few  who,  like  the  scribe  in  the  pre- 
ceding context,  were  already  "  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God,"  (v.  84.) 

41.  And  Jesus  sat  over  against  the  treasury,  and  be- 
held hoAv  the  people  cast  money  into  the  treasuiy  ;  and 
many  that  were  rich  cast  in  much. 

By  a  perfectly  natural  association,  the  evangelist  might  here  have 
added,  as  a  sort  of  contrast  to  the  picture  of  these  hj'pocrites  devouring 
widows'  houses,  that  of  a  poor  widow,  perhaps  thus  impoverished,  giv- 
ing her  remaining  mite  to  God,  even  if  the  incident  itself  had  hap- 
pened at  some  other  time.  But  as  Mark  and  Luke  (21,  1-4)  both 
give  it  in  the  same  connection,  passing  over,  as  it  were,  for  the  purpose, 
the  extended  report  of  Christ's  discourse  against  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
sees preserved  by  Matthew  (23,  13-39),  and  as  the  other  incidents  of 
this  eventful  week,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  are  chronologically  ordered, 
it  is  much  the  most  probable  as  well  as  the  most  pleasing  supposition, 
that  soon  after  he  had  uttered  this  same  denunciation  against  clerical 


M  A  R  K  12,  41.  42.  341 

plunderers  of  widows  houses,  he  beheld  a  widow  in  the  very  act  of 
doing  what  was  diametrically  opposite.  jNIark,  as  usual,  imparts  to  us 
a  clear  though  brief  glimpse  of  the  outward  situation.  And  Jesus 
sitting,  or  having  sat  down,  perhaps  at  the  close  of  the  discourse  re- 
corded briefl)^  here  and  in  full  detail  by  Mat1:hew,  over  against, 
opposite,  in  front  of,  the  treasury,  a  name  given  by  the  rabbins  to  thir- 
teen chests  called  trumpets  from  their  shape,  which  stood  in  the  court 
of  the  women,  but  applied  by  John  (8,  20),  either  to  the  court  itself,  or 
to  some  other  large  apartment  of  the  temple,  in  which  Christ  addressed 
the  people  upon  that  occasion  and  perhaps  on  this,  although  the  word 
treasury  here  means,  not  the  court  or  room,  but  the  receptacle  within 
it,  in  which  sense  Josephus  also  used  it,  in  sa3nng  that  the  golden  vine 
presented  to  the  temple  hy  Agrippa  was  suspended  over  the  treasury. 
The  treasuries  or  store-rooms,  mentioned  by  the  same  writer  in  the 
plural  number,  have  respect  to  the  siege  of  the  city  by  the  Romans, 
when  the  citizens  deposited  their  goods  for  safety  in  the  chambers  which' 
surrounded  or  adjoined  the  courts  of  the  temple.  Beheld  how  denotes 
a  more  particular  and  curious  inspection  than  would  have  been  ex- 
pressed by  the  usual  word  saic.  The  verb  itself  means  to  survey  or 
contemplate  as  a  spectacle,  and  implies  a  close  observation  of  the  manner 
as  well  as  of  the  general  fact  of  contribution.  The  people,  crowd,  or 
multitude,  as  a  promiscuous  mass,  without  distinction  of  rank  or  wealth. 
Cast,  casts,  the  present  tense  as  usual  exhibiting  the  scene  as  actually 
passing.  Money,  literally,  brass  or  copper  (see  above,  on  6,  8.)  It  ap- 
pears from  what  is  here  said,  that  the  contribution  was  not  only  in  a 
public  place  but  open  to  inspection  as  to  what  each  person  gave.  And 
many  rich  {men)  cast  (in)  many  (things  or  coins)  or  large  (sums.) 

42.  And.  there  came  a  certain  poor  widow,  and  she 

threw  in  two  mites,  which  make  a  farthing. 

There  is  something  very  striking  in  the  form  of  the  original,  though 
not  in  strict  accordance  with  our  idiom.  And  coming  one  pjoor  widoio, 
the  xerj  numeral  implying  loneliness,  a  trait  obhterated  by  translating 
it  as  an  indefinite  article  or  pronoun  (a  or  a  certain),  cast  (in)  two 
mites,  or  lejita,  meaning  very  small  coin,  or  the  smallest  then  in  circu- 
lation. Mark  explains  the  Greek  term  by  a  Latin  one  (Ko8pdvTr}s,  quad- 
rans)  denoting  the  fourth  part  of  a  Roman  as,  which  was  itself  the 
tenth  part  of  the  denarius  or  silver  penny  mentioned  in  v.  15  above.  The 
widow's  mite  was  therefore  about  the  fifth  part  of  a  cent,  and  her  whole 
contribution  about  two  fifths.  The  value  is  only  of  importance  as 
showing  upon  how  minute  a  gift  our  Lord  pronounced  this  splendid 
panegyric,  which  might  well  be  envied  by  a  Croesus  or  a  Rothschild. 
it  is  a  quaint  but  fine  remark  of  Bcugel,  that  instead  of  merely  men- 
tioning the  sum  (a  quadrans),  Mark  gives  the  pieces  that  composed  it, 
one  of  which  the  widow  might  have  kept,  instead  of  casting  both  into 
the  treasury. 

43.  And  he  called  (unto  him)  his  disciples,  and  saith 
imto  them,  V^erilj,  I  saj  unto  you.  That  this  jDOor  wddow 


342  MxiRK  12,  43.  44. 

liath  cast  more  in  than    all  tliey  wliicli  have   cast  into 
the  treasury. 

Not  content  with  noticing  this  humble  benefaction  for  himself,  our 
blessed  Lord  directs  the  attention  of  his  disciples  to  it  also.  Verily 
{^(Uiien)  I  say  unto  you.  his  accustomed  formula  in  introducing  some- 
thing solemn  and  important,  or,  as  in  this  case,  strange  and  unexpected. 
More  than  all  tliose  casting  into  the  treasury  on  this  occasion.  In  the 
last  verse  he  explains  the  principle  or  gives  the  kej  to  this  paradoxical 
assertion,  namely,  that  the  value  of  such  gifts  is  to  be  estimated,  not 
only  by  the  motive,  which  he  takes  for  granted,  or  leaves  out  of  the 
account  as  too  notorious  to  be  overlooked,  but  by  the  cost  or  sacrifice 
which  it  involves. 

44.  For  all  (thej) did  castinof  their  abundance:  but  she 
of  her  want  did  cast  in  all  that  she  had,  (even)  all  her  living. 

For  all  they^  meaning  either  all  the  rich  exprcssl}''  mentioned 
in  V.  41,  with  whom  the  widow  is  contrasted  in  the  next  verse, 
or  all  the  rest,  as  being  richer  than  herself  and  therefore  sacri- 
ficing less  in  their  donations.  Of  their  abundance,  out  of  that  abound- 
ing (or  remaining  over)  to  them.  But  she.,  or  as  it  may  be  rendered 
this  (one)  or  this  (wojnan,)  of  her  icant^  out  of  her  deficiency,  the 
noun  corresponding  to  the  verb  employed  in  10,  21.  and  there  explain- 
ed. All  that  she  had^  in  Greek  still  more  expressive,  all  (things) 
whatsoever  (or  as  many  as)  she  had.  All  her  living,  the  whole  life  of  her, 
in  which  sense  life  is  used  occasionally  elsewhere.  (Luke  8,  43.  15,  12. 
30.)  Strong  as  these  expressions  are,  they  do  not  necessarily  mean 
any  thing  more  than  that  she  gave  all  then  at  her  disposal  or  com- 
mand, all  that  she  might  have  spent  for  her  subsistence. 


CIIAPTEE    XIII. 

Having  publicly  assumed  his  Messianic  office  and  begim  to  exercise 
its  powers  ;  having  defined  his  position  with  respect  to  the  existing 
theoci-atical  authorities,  and  by  his  last  discourse  cut  off  all  hope  of 
further  tolerance  or  reconciliation ;  our  Lord  now  bids  farewell  to  the 
temple  with  a  solemn  prophecy  of  its  destruction,  addressed  to  his 
disciples,  who  inquire  as  to  the  time  and  the  i)remonitory  signs  of  this 
great  catastrophe  (1-4.)  This  gives  occasion  to  a  long  prophetical 
discourse,  in  which  he  first  tells  them  what  are  not  signs  of  the  end  (5- 
13),  and  then  what  are  (14-33),  closing  with  an  exhortation  to  perpe- 
tual vigilance  and  readiness  for  his  aj)};earance  (34-37.)  As  no  part 
of  scripture  has  been  more  variously  explained  than  this,  with  its 
parallels  in  Luke  and  jNlatthew,  it  will  be  well  before  attempting  to 
interpret  the  details,  to  exhibit  briefl}^  some  of  the  more  general 
hypotheses  by  which  their  meaning  is  determined,  and  to  discriminate 
between  what  is  agreed  upon  as  certain  and  what  is  more  or  less  the 


MARK  13.  343 

subject  of  dispute.  The  starting  point  of  all  discussion  on  the  subject 
is  the  universally  admitted  fact,  that  we  have  here  an  express  predic- 
tion of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  by  the  Romans.  This  is  granted, 
even  by  the  infidel  who  looks  upon  it  as  a  happy  accident,  a  chance- 
coincidence,  and  by  the  sceptic  who  regards  it  as  a  prophecy  ex  eventu. 
Some  go  further  and  suppose  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  be  the 
subject  of  the  whole  discourse ;  but  this  requires  the  assumption  of  so 
many  hyperbolical  expressions,  and  such  a  violent  construction  of  the 
terms  apparently  referring  to  remoter  changes,  that  the  great  mass  of 
interpreters  admit  the  coexistence  of  two  great  themes  in  this  context, 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  the  end  of  the  world  or  the  present 
state  of  things.  It  then  becomes  a  question  how  these  topics  stand 
related  to  eacli  other,  as  to  which  point  there  are  two  main  theories, 
each  of  which  is  variousl}^  modified.  The  first  is,  that  these  two  great 
subjects  are  distinctly  and  sucessively  presented,  so  that  the  interpreter 
can  separate  them  from  each  other ;  the  second,  that  they  are  promis- 
cuously blended,  or  at  least  continually  interchanged  and  intermingled, 
so  that  such  a  separation  is  extremely  difficult  if  not  impossible.  Of 
those  who  take  the  first  view,  some  suppose  the  one  theme  to  be  finally 
disposed  of,  before  the  other  is  introduced  at  all,  but  differ  much  as 
to  the  precise  point  of  transition,  though  the  greater  number  fix  it 
either  at  v.  14  or  v.  24  of  this  chapter  (and  the  corresponding  parts  of 
Luke  and  Matthew.)  But  as  some  things  in  each  of  the  divisions  thus 
obtained  seem  to  be  more  appropriate  to  the  other,  many  interpreters 
assume  an  inverted  order  of  the  topics,  or  a  return  to  the  first  after  the 
second  is  disposed  of,  or  a  still  more  complicated  scheme,  in  which  the 
signs  of  each  event  are  stated  in  succession,  and  then  the  times  in  the 
same  order.  These  inconveniences,  as  well  as  other  more  important 
reasons,  have  induced  some  of  the  best  modern  writers  to  regard  both 
themes  as  running  through  the  whole  discourse,  but  still  with  great 
diversity  of  judgment  as  to  their  precise  mutual  relation.  Some  regard 
this  as  a  tjq^ical  one,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  prefiguring  that  of 
the  whole  world  hereafter.  Another  theory  is  the  perspective  one, 
according  to  which  nearer  and  remoter  events  are  presented  like  the 
objects  in  a  landscape,  without  chronological  specification  of  the  inter- 
vals betAvecn  them.  A  third  modification  of  this  same  hj^pothesis  is 
that  of  sequences  or  cycles,  the  same  prophecy  receiving  not  a  gradual 
fulfilment  merely,  which  is  an  assumption  common  to  several  of  the 
theories  already  mentioned,  but  a  series  or  succession  of  complete  ful- 
filments upon  different  scales  and  under  different  circumstances.  Even 
this  incomplete  enumeration  will  suffice  to  show  the  vast  variety  of 
plausible  hypotheses  devised  to  facilitate  the  exposition  of  this  difficult 
and  interesting  passage,  a  variety  susceptible  of  only  one  solution, 
namely,  that  the  prophecy  itself  has  been  but  partially  fulfilled,  and 
that  the  unfulfilled  part,  from  the  very  nature  and  design  of  prophecy, 
cannot  be  fully  understood,  or  even  certainly  distinguished  as  literal  or 
figurative,  until  the  event  shall  make  it  clear.  Every  prediction  which 
has  been  fulfilled  was  equally  mysterious  beforehand,  for  example 
those  of  Christ's  first  advent,  scarcely  one  of  which  was  not  suscepti- 


344  MARK  13,  1. 

blc  of  tvro  or  more  interpretations  till  he  actually  came ;  and  the 
same  thing  may  be  looked  for  in  the  predictions  of  his  second  coming. 
It  is  the  i)art  of  Avisdom,  therefore,  not  to  attempt  what  is  impossible, 
the  anticipation  of  things  yet  to  be  developed,  but  to  ascertain,  as  far 
as  may  be,  what  has  been  verified  already,  and  to  be  contented,  as  to 
the  remainder,  with  a  careful  explanation  of  the  terms  employed, 
according  to  analogy  and  usage,  and  a  reverential  waiting  for  ulterior 
disclosures  by  the  light  of  divine  providence  shining  on  the  word. 
Among  the  incidental  but  important  questions  raised  in  this  discussion, 
one  of  the  most  difiBcult  and  interesting  has  respect  to  the  apparent 
nearness  of  the  two  events  as  here  predicted,  and  the  mode  of  recon- 
ciling this  representation  with  the  truth  of  history  and  our  Lord's 
omniscience.  This  is  a  difficulty  not  confined  to  any  one  hypothesis, 
but  pressing  more  or  less  on  all  which  recognize  a  real  prophecy  with 
two  distinguishable  themes  or  subjects.  To  this  point,  as  well  as  to 
tlie  general  question,  upon  what  hypothesis  or  principle  the  passage  is 
to  be  explained,  there  will  be  constant  reference  in  the  following  detail- 
ed examination  of  the  chapter. 

1.  And  as  he  went  ont  of  tlie  temple,  one  of  his  disci- 
ples saith  nnto  him,  Master,  see  what  manner  of  stones, 
and  what  buildings  (are  here  !) 

And  Tie  departing  (going  forth)  out  of  tlie  temple  (or  sacred  enclo- 
sure), not  merely  leaving  it  for  the  night  (as  in  11, 11.  19),  but  going 
finally  away  from  it,  an  idea  still  more  clearly  expressed  by  jNIatthew 
(24,  1.)  One  of  his  di8cip)les^  probably  Peter  speaking  for  the  rest, 
who  are  mentioned  collectively  by  Matthew,  and  indefinitely  by  Luke 
(21,  5.)  Master  (i.  e.  teacher),  see^  not  as  if  he  now  surveyed  them 
for  the  first  time,  but  as  a  natural  and  child-like  expression  of  their 
own  surprise  and  admiration,  which  may  have  been  uttered  before,  but 
only  recorded  here,  because  of  the  remarkable  discourse  to  Mdiich  it 
gave  occasion.  What  manner^  i.  e.  what  sort  or  kind,  the  phrase 
always  used  to  represent  this  Greek  word  in  our  version  (compare 
Matt.  8,  27.  Luke  1,  29.  7,  39.  2  Pet.  3, 11.  1  John  3, 1.)  As  the 
words  are  not  a  question  but  an  exclamation,  there  is  no  need  of  com- 
pleting the  sentence  by  suppl3nng  any  thing.  What  stones!  what 
huildings  !  Josephus  gives  a  lively  and  it  might  almost  seem  extrava- 
gant account  of  the  materials  used  in  Herod's  renovation  of  the  temple, 
which  he  describes  as  marble  blocks  of  dazzling  whiteness  and  enor- 
mous size,  some  being  twenty-five  feet  long,  twelve  high,  and  eight 
wide.  Buildings,  in  the  plural,  means  not  merely  the  sanctuary  (see 
above,  on  11,  11),  but  the  courts  with  their  porches  and  adjoining 
chambers  some  of  which  were  very  spacious.  The  temple  originally 
built  by  Solomon  (1  Kings  C,  37.  38),  and  destroyed  400  years  after  by 
Nebuzaradan,  general  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon  (2  Kings  25, 
9).  was  rebuilt  after  long  delays  and  interruptions  by  the  restored 
Jews  under  Persian  auspices  and  finished  in  the  year  515  B.  C.  (Ezra 
6, 15.)      This  structure,  which  appears  to  have  been  much  inferior  ex- 


MARK   13,  1.  2.  345 

ternally  to  Solomon's  (Hagg.  2,  3),  was  renewed  by  Herod  the  Great 
piecemeal,  one  part  remaining  while  another  was  rebuilt,  so  as  to  pre- 
serve its  moral  and  historical  identity,  perhaps  on  account  of  the  pre- 
diction (Ilagg.  2.  7-9.  Mai.  3, 1.)  Hence  it  is  always  known  in  history 
not  as  the  third  but  as  the  second  temple.  Herod,  with  whom  the 
love  of  art  and  especially  of  ornamental  architecture  was  a  ruling 
passion,  after  decorating  and  rebuilding  many  towns  and  cities  both  in 
Palestine  and  other  countries,  seems.to  have  chosen  for  the  occupation 
of  his  last  years  the  renewal  of  the  temple,  in  a  style  of  architecture 
no  doubt  far  superior  to  that  of  Solomon,  when  measured  by  the 
classical  or  Grecian  standard.  John  represents  the  Jews  indeed  as  say- 
ing that  the  work  had  then  been  going  on  forty-six  years  (John  2,20), 
i.  e.  from  the  time  of  its  original  inception,  but  no  doubt  with  many 
interruptions  and  suspensions,  though  Josephus  speaks  of  eight  years 
during  which  ten  thousand  men  were  constantly  employed  upon  it. 
The  separate  mention  of  the  stones  is  thought  by  some  to  imply  that  the 
work  of  renovation  was  still  going  on  and  the  materials  lying  about, 
singly  or  in  masses.  The  admiration  here  expressed  by  the  disciples 
did  not  spring  from  ignorance  or  want  of  taste,  but  from  the  natural 
impression  made  even  on  untutored  minds  by  architectural  magnifi- 
cence. 

2.  And  Jesus  answering  said  unto  him,  Seest  tliou 
these  great  buildings  ?  there  shall  not  be  left  one  stone 
uj)on  another,  that  shall  not  be  thrown  down. 

Nothing  can  be  more  natural  than  this  question  as  a  preparation 
for  the  prophecy  that  follows,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  Stable  and  secure  as 
these  splendid  edifices  now  appear  to  you.'  The  same  essential  mean- 
ing is  expressed,  but  less  emphaticallj^,  by  the  affirmative  construction 
(thou  seest.)  Left,  not  left  behind,  which  is  expressed  by  a  different 
Greek  verb  (as  in  10,  7.  12, 19),  but  let  alone  or  left  in  statu  quo. 
/Stone  u2)on  stone,  the  literal  translation,  is  equally  good  English  and 
more  pointed  than  the  common  version.  Slmll  not,  twice  repeated,  is 
the  peculiarly  expressive  Greek  negation  by  the  aorist  subjunctive 
which  excludes  all  possible  contingencies.  Thrown  dozen,  so  translated 
only  here  and  in  the  parable  (Matt,  24,  2.  Luke  21,  6)  ;  elsewhere  de- 
stroyed  (see  below,  on  14,58.  15,29),  come  to  nought,  overthroio  (Acts 
5,  38.  39),  and  once  dissolved  (2  Cor.  5,  1),  the  nearest  approximation 
to  the  strict  sense,  which  is  that  of  loosening,  separating  the  parts,  a 
term  peculiarly  appropriate  to  such  a  total  ruin  as  the  one  here  pre- 
dicted. This  verb,  and  the  phrase  stone  upon  stone,  have  been 
preserved  m  all  the  three  accounts,  no  doubt  because  the  Saviour 
uttered  these  very  words  or  their  exact  equivalents. 

3.  And  as  he  sat  upon  the  mount  of  Olives,  over 
against  the  temple,  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  and  An- 
drew, asked  him  privately, 

15^- 


346  MARK  13,  3.  4. 

On  his  wa}'-  from  Jerusalem  to  Bethany,  which  lay  across  the 
mount  of  Olives,  lie  appears  to  have  sat  down  on  the  mountain's  brow 
to  rest  or  to  take  another  view  of  the  city,  whicli  from  that  point  lay 
spread  out  before  him  like  a  map  or  picture.  He  sitting  (thus)  over 
against  (directly  opposite)  the  temple,  which  was  on  the  east  side  of 
the  city,  next  the  mount  of  Olives,  and  separated  from  it  only  by  the 
narrow  brook  or  dell  called  Kedron  (John  18,  1.)  The  position  here 
assigned  to  Christ  and  his  disciples  is  not  only  striking  in  itself,  but 
suited  to  enhance  the  grandeur  of  the  prophetical  discourse  that  follows. 
Mark  alone  names  the  four  disciples,  who  are  no  other  than  the  two 
pairs  of  brothers  first  called  to  attend  the  Saviour  (see  above,  on  1, 
10-20),  two  of  whom  (Andrew  and  John)  had  left  John  the  Baptist 
to  follow  him  (John  1,  37),  and  three  of  whom  (Peter,  James  and 
John)  had  already  been  distinguished  from  the  rest  on  more  than  one 
occasion  (see  above,  on  5.  37.  9,  2.)  PrixateJy  (in  private  or  apart) 
might  seem  to  mean  apart  from  the  other  nine  apostles  ;  but  as  ^Mat- 
thew  (24,  3)  still  says  tlie  disciples,  it  is  probable  that  the  four  are 
only  mentioned  as  particularly  earnest  in  making  this  inquiry,  although 
speaking  with  and  for  the  rest. 

4.  Tell  us,  wlieii  shall  these  things  be  ?  and  Avhat  (shall 
be)  the  sign  when  all  these  tilings  shall  be  fulfilled? 

Tell  us  more  than  this,  or  over  and  above  this,  as  if  what  he  had 
just  said  only  served  to  whet  their  curiosity  or  appetite  for  informa- 
tion. The  assurance  that  this  strange  event  would  certainly  take 
place  made  them  only  the  more  anxious  to  know  when,  and  by  what 
tokens  it  would  be  preceded.  These  things,  the  changes  just  predicted, 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  with  all  that  it  involved  or  presupposed 
or  carried  with  it  as  its  necessary  consequences.  Shall  he,  happen, 
come  to  pass,  though  not  the  verb  so  rendered  elsewhere  but  the  sim- 
ple verb  of  existence.  Shall  ie,  at  the  time  of  the  event,  or  is  now 
as  a  matter  of  prediction  and  divine  appointment.  This  shall  he  is 
supplied  by  the  translators ;  that  in  the  last  clause  is  expressed  in  the 
original,  but  by  a  verb  denoting  simple  futurition,  which  can  be  ren- 
dered into  English  only  by  the  phrase,  about  to  he  fuljilled.  Some 
understand  this  to  mean  when  all  these  {things),  i.  e.  the  temple  and 
its  appurtenances,  or  the  world  itself,  arc  ahout  to  he  finished,  i.  e.  abol- 
ished or  destroyed ;  but  there  is  no  instance  of  this  sense  in  the  New 
Testament,  unless  it  be  the  doubtful  one  in  liom.  9,  28,  where  it  is 
quoted  from  the  Septuagint  version  of  Isai.  10,  22.  It  rather  means 
either  when  these  predictions  are  about  to  be  fulfilled,  or  still  more 
probably,  when  this  existing  state  of  things,  this  system  or  this  dis- 
pensation, is  about  to  be  completed,  wound  up,  brought  to  a  conclusion 
(compare  Matt.  24.  3.)  The  sign,  token,  or  premonitory  indication, 
either  in  the  general  sense  in  which  all  great  events  or  changes  may 
be  said  to  have  their  signs,  or  in  the  special  sense  of  a  prophetic  sign, 
or  one  event  predicted  to  ensure  the  occurrence  of  another.  The  two 
questions  may  be  taken  as  equivalent  expressions  for  the  same  thing, 


MARK  13,  4.  5.  6.  347 


when  will  it  be,  and  how  are  we  to  know  when  it  will  be  ?  or  as  two 
distinct  inquiries,  the  first  relating  to  the  time  and  the  second  to  the 
premonitions.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  even  if  the  questions  be  dis- 
tinct, they  have  relation  to  the  same  event,  and  that  the  disciples 
looked  for  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  which  their  Lord  had  just 
predicted,  as  a  part  of  that  great  winding  up.  denouement,  or  catastro- 
phe, which  they  were  already  accustomed  to  associate  with  the  erection 
of  Messiah's  kins-dom. 


'O" 


5,  And  Jesus  answering  tliem,  began  to  say,  Take  lieecl 
lest  any  (man)  deceive  you. 

Began  to  say  is  always  something  more  than  said  (see  above,  on  1, 
45.  12,  1),  and  seems  here  to  imply  that  what  he  said  was  not  restrict- 
ed to  a  single  topic,  that  he  first  spoke  of  one  thing  and  then  proceeded 
to  another.  This  is  the  more  probable  because  our  Lord,  instead  of 
beginning  with  the  signs  or  premonitions  of  his  second  coming,  as 
many  seem  to  think  he  does,  and  as  the  twelve  may  have  expected, 
begins  by  telling  what  was  not  to  be  so  reckoned,  although  apt  to  be 
mistaken  for  the  signs  in  question.  But  (instead  of  stating  these  signs 
first)  he  l)egan  hy  saying  (something  very  different.)  Talce  heed^  liter- 
ally, looJi  {out),  see  {to  it),  be  on  your  guard  (see  above,  on  8,  15.  12, 
3S.)  Lest  any  (man),  or  any  (one),  mislead  you,  make  you  err  or 
wander  from  the  truth  or  from  the  path  of  duty.  The  divine  wisdom 
of  the  Saviour  and  his  knowledge  of  the  perils  which  beset  his  fol- 
lowers are  strikingly  exemplified  in  this  preliminary  warning  against 
error  and  delusion,  this  exposure  of  false  signs  before  giving  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  true.  This  method  of  proceeding  is  the  more  remarkable 
because  the  course  suggested  b}''  fanatical  excitement  is  the  very  oppo- 
site, and  even  wise  men  who  devote  themselves  to  such  inquiries  are 
too  prone  to  look  exclusively  at  what  is  positive  in  Christ's  instruc- 
tions, without  heeding  this  preliminary  admonition,  or  even  observing 
that  his  purpose  in  this  first  part  of  his  discourse  is  not  to  tell  what  are 
but  what  are  not  the  premonitions  of  the  great  catastrophe  to  which 
he  here  refers,  whatever  it  may  be. 

6.  For  many  shall  come  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am 
(Christ),  and  shall  deceive  many. 

Fo?'  (introducing  the  ground  or  reason  of  this  unexpected  warning) 
many  will  come  in  my  name,  a  very  common  phrase  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament and  used  repeatedly  in  this  gospel  (see  above,  on  9,  37.  38.  39. 
41.  11,  9.  10,  and  below,  on  IG,  17),  but  here  in  a  stronger  sense  than 
usual  to  denote,  not  mere  profession  or  commission  or  dependence,  but 
a  literal  assumption  of  another's  name  or  personation  of  him,  as  ap- 
pears from  what  follows,  saying  (that)  I  am,  i.  e.  /  am  Christ,  as 
expressed  by  Matthew  (24,  5),  and  correctlj^  supplied  here  by  the 
translators.  (See  the  similar  expression  used  above  in  6,  50,  and 
there  explained.)     This  description  would  include  false  Messiahs,  i.  e. 


348  MARK  13,  6.  7. 


such  as  claimed  to  be  the  true  Messiah  in  opposition  to  our  Lord,  and 
fahe  CJirifits,  i.  e.  such  as  claimed  to  be  himself,  returned  again  ac- 
cording to  liis  promise.  The  latter  sense  is  certainly  the  most  appro- 
priate in  this  connection,  where  he  is  not  speaking  to  the  Jews  who 
doubted  or  denied  his  INIessiahship,  but  to  his  own  disciples  who  had 
solemnly  acknowledged  it  (see  above,  on  8,  29),  and  who  were  much  less 
in  danger  of  deception  by  the  claims  of  any  new  competitor  than  by 
a  personation  of  the  Lord  himself.  But  when  was  this  fulfilled  ?  We 
have  no  historical  account  of  false  jMessiahs  or  false  Christs,  in  either 
of  the  senses  just  explained,  before  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem  ;  whereas 
there  are  reckoned  more  than  fifty  false  Messiahs  since  that  time 
among  the  Jews,  from  Bar  Cochba  in  the  second  century  to  Sabbatai 
Zebhi  in  the  seventeenth  ;  and  among  the  Christians  various  fanatics 
and  impostors  have  directly  or  indirectly  claimed  to  be  our  Lord  him- 
self, in  one  sense  or  another.  This  is  one  of  the  chief  diflBculties 
which  attend  the  exclusive  application  of  this  part  of  the  discourse  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or  the  period  immediately  preceding  it ; 
to  overcome  which  those  who  advocate  that  view  are  under  the  neces- 
sity of  assuming,  without  evidence  from  history,  that  the  prophecy 
was  verified,  or  of  reckoning  as  false  Christs  some  who  were  only  false 
prophets  or  false  teachers  or  fanatical  impostors,  such  as  Simon  Magus, 
Elymas,  Theudas,  Judas  the  Gaulonite,  Dositheus,  Menander,  Cerinthus, 
and  others  ;  no  one  of  whom  is  known  to  have  assumed  that  sacred 
name  and  character.  Some  escape  the  difficulty  by  appl3nng  this  par- 
ticular prediction  to  a  later  period,  and  others,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  by  giving  a  wide  scope  to  the  whole  discourse,  and  making  this 
part  comprehend  all  false  pretensions  of  the  kind  in  question,  from 
the  date  of  the  prediction  to  the  end  of  time. 

1.  And  wlieii  ye  shall  hear  of  wars,  and  rumours  of 

wars,  be  ye  not  troubled ;  for  (sucli  things)  must  needs 

be,  but  the  end  (shall)  not  (be)  yet. 

Having  told  them  that  the  mere  assumption  of  his  name,  or  profes- 
sion of  identity  with  him,  however  many  might  attempt  it,  would  be 
no  sign  of  his  actual  return,  he  now  points  out  another  false  sign  of  a 
very  different  nature,  not  dependent  upon  human  cunning  or  impos- 
ture, but  on  the  misapprehension  of  God's  providence  by  believers 
themselves.  WJien  ye  hear  (not  shall  heai\  which  is  too  exclusive, 
though  the  reference  is  really  to  the  future)  wars  and  rumours  (lite- 
rally, hearings)  of  tears,  which  some  suj^pose  to  mean  the  same  thing, 
the  second  phrase  being  added  to  explain  how  wars  could  be  heard, 
wJien  ye  hear  icars,  even  (or  that  is)  rumours  of  tears.  But  most  in- 
terpreters suppose  two  dittcrent  objects  to  be  here  distinguished  ;  either 
wars  immediately  at  hand  the  sound  of  which  is  heard  directly,  and 
those  more  remote  which  are  known  only  by  report ;  or  actual  wars, 
such  as  have  already  broken  out,  and  threatened  or  inchoate  wars,  of 
which  rumour  gives  premonitory  notice.  JJe  ye  not  trouhledj  agitated, 
filled  with  consternation,  as  if  these  commotions  necessarily  imply  tho 


MARK   13,  7.  8.  349 

imminence  of  some  great  catastrophe  or  of  the  final  consummation. 
The  necessity  of  this  caution,  not  to  the  first  disciples  merely  but  to 
their  successors,  is  abundantly  apparent  from  the  well-known  fact  that 
pious  men  in  every  age  have  been  continually  falling  into  this  mis- 
take. It  would  be  easy  to  evince,  by  a  catena  of  quotations  from  the 
earlier  and  later  fathers,  from  the  medieval  writers,  the  reformers,  and 
the  protestant  divines  of  the  last  three  centuries,  that  this  propensity  to 
look  on  national  commotions  and  collisions  as  decisive  proof  that  the 
world  is  near  its  end,  has  never  been  extinguished  in  the  church. 
There  are  no  doubt  truly  devout  Christians  at  this  moment  drawing 
such  conclusions  from  the  mutiny  in  India  and  the  war  in  China,  in 
direct  opposition  to  our  Lord's  command,  which,  even  if  directly  applied 
only  to  the  first  disciples  and  their  times,  involves  a  principle  admitting 
of  a  no  less  certain  application  to  ourselves  and  our  times.  The  mean- 
ing is  not  that  such  changes  may  not  be  immediately  succeeded  by  the 
greatest  change  of  all,  but  only  that  they  are  no  sign  of  it,  and  ought 
not  to  be  so  regarded. 

8.  For  nation  shall  rise  a2:ainst  nation,  and  kino^dom 
against  kingdom,  and  there  shall  be  earthqnakes  in  (di- 
vers) places,  and  there  shall  be  famines,  and  troubles  : 
these  (are)  the  beginnings  of  sorrows. 

The  first  clause  of  this  verse  simply  represents  as  certain  what  had 
only  been  referred  to  as  a  possible  or  probable  contingency.  '  I  say 
this  because  national  disturbances  not  only  may  but  will  occur,  and 
you  will  therefore  be  in  danger  of  this  very  error.'  Rise^  or  retaining 
the  emphatic  passive  form,  idUI  be  roused  (see  above,  on  1,  31.  4, 27.  5, 
41.  6, 14.  12,  26,  and  compare  the  illustration  drawn  from  such  events 
in  3,  24.)  The  next  clause  extends  what  has  just  been  said  of  national 
commotions  to  physical  calamities  and  social  troubles,  earthqual'es, 
famines  and  disturbances^  which  last  word  seems  to  mean  internal 
troubles,  such  as  riots  and  rebellions,  as  distinguished  from  foreign  or 
international  collisions ;  but  the  word  is  omitted  b}''  the  latest  critics 
because  wanting  in  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  versions. 
The  textual  question  is  of  less  importance,  as  the  enumeration  of  par- 
ticulars is  not  intended  to  exhaust  but  to  exemplify  the  general  idea  of 
commotions  and  calamities,  from  which  the  followers  of  Christ  would 
be  tempted  to  expect  his  speedy  re-appearance.  This  mistake  is  not 
theoretical  but  practical,  because  it  confounds  the  beginning  with  the 
end  of  a  disciplinary  process,  and  unnerves  men  for  exertion  and  en- 
durance, by  the  hope  of  speedy  or  immediate  respite,  when  a  long  course 
of  trial  and  of  suifering  is  still  before  them.  This  idea,  which  was 
negatively  brought  out  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  preceding,  is  posi- 
tively brought  out  in  the  last  clause  of  the  one  before  us,  where  the 
original  order  of  the  words  is  peculiarly  significant  and  striking.  Be- 
ginnings (not  endings,  as  you  may  hastily  conclude)  of  throes  (or 
pangs  are)  these  (things).     There  is  also  wonderful  significancy  in  the 


350  MARK  13,  8.  9 


second  noun,  wliich  properly  denotes,  not  sorrows  or  pains  in  general, 
but  the  pangs  of  childbirth  in  particular,  a  figure  often  used  in  scripture 
to  describe  not  mere  intensity  of  suffering,  but  also  the  accessory  ideas 
of  its  being  sudden,  temporary,  and  productive  of  some  new  result. 
Hence  it  is  never  applied  to  the  torments  of  the  damned  nor  even  to 
the  life-long  sorrows  of  the  present  state,  but  only  to  intense  yet  mo- 
mentary pains  preceding  some  extraordinary  change  for  the  better  or 
the  worse  (compare  Isai.  26,  17.  John  16,  21.  1  Thess.  5,  3.)  Here  again 
it  is  difficult  to  find  in  contemporary  history  a  state  of  things  answer- 
ing to  this  description  before  the  downfal  of  Jerusalem,  the  Roman 
empire  being  then  at  peace  and  the  provincial  wars  of  which  we  read 
too  insignificant  and  local  to  exhaust  the  meaning  of  this  terribly  sub- 
lime description. 

9.  But  take  lieecl  to  yourselves  ;  for  tliey  shall  deliver 
you  up  to  councils,  and  in  the  synagogues  ye  shall  be 
beaten,  and  ye  shall  be  brought  before  rulers  and  kings 
for  my  sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them. 

The  double  pronoun  in  the  first  clause  is  peculiarly  emphatic,  hut 
see  ye  to  yourselves^  implying  a  return  from  more  remote  anticipations 
or  predictions  to  his  immediate  hearers.  As  if  he  had  said. '  but  while 
these  dangers  will  exist  for  ages  and  these  errors  be  committed  by 
many  generations  of  those  who  shall  succeed  you,  there  are  others  still 
more  imminent,  affecting  you  as  individuals,  and  calling  for  the  utmost 
care  and  circumspection  to  avoid  them.'  These  were  the  dangers  of 
immediate  persecution  to  which  the  apostles  would  be  soon  exposed, 
of  arraignment  before  councils  or  tribunals,  whether  national  or  local, 
with  personal  maltreatment  of  a  painful  and  disgraceful  kind,  but  with 
the  accompanying  opportunity  of  bearing  witness  to  the  truth  and  to 
their  master  before  civil  rulers  of  the  highest  rank.  The  indefinite  con- 
struction, they  shall  deliver  you^  is  equivalent  in  sense,  though  not  in 
form,  to  the  passive,  ye  shall  he  delivered.  The  verb  does  not  of  itself 
denote  treacherous  bctraj-al,  but  simph''  transfer  or  delivery  into  the 
power  of  another,  and  especially  of  magistrates  or  executioners  (Luke 
12,  58.)  Councils^  synedria,  a  word  corresponding  in  its  etymology  to 
sessions  and  consistories^  or  meetings  where  men  sit  together  for  some 
common  purpose,  and  especially  for  consultation  or  deliberation  upon 
public  business.  An  Aramaic  corruption  of  this  Greek  word  (Sanhedrin) 
was  used  to  designate  the  national  council  of  the  Jews,  composed  of 
priests,  scribes,  and  elders  of  the  people  (see  above,  on  8,  31.  11,27)  ; 
but  the  w'ord  itself  may  have  been  extended  to  the  local  courts  of  jus- 
tice. I?i  (literally  into)  the  synagogues^  which  some  philologists  regard 
as  a  mere  interchange  of  particles,  but  others  as  a  constructio  2>Tcegnans^ 
in  which  previous  entrance  is  implied  though  not  expressed.  Into  the 
synagogues  ye  shall  he  (taken  and)  heate?i,  or  scourged  in  the  severest 
manner  (see  above,  on  12,  3.  5.)  Synagogues  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its 
proper  sense  of  public  meetings,  chiefly  for  religious  worship,  at  which 


MARK  13,  9.  10.  11.  351 


the  Jewish  traditions  also  represent  such  punishments  as  having  been 
inflicted,  not  as  religious  or  ecclesiastical  penalties,  but  for  the  sake  of 
greater  publicity,  as  secular  notices  in  England  are  in  certain  cases  pub- 
lished in  the  churches,  or  at  least  upon  the  church-doors.  Before^  a 
Greek  preposition  idiomatically  used  to  signify  judicial  or  forensic  ap- 
pearance in  the  presence  of  a  magistrate,  a  neglect  of  which  idiom  has 
obscured  the  sense  in  our  translation  of  Matt.  28,  14.  Rulers  (leaders, 
governors)  and  kings,  here  put  for  the  highest  class  of  civil  magistrates 
or  rulers.  Shall  he  hrought^  literally,  stood,  or  made  to  stand  (as  in  9, 
oG)  as  culprits  or  offenders.  For  my  sal-e,  or  on  my  account^  i.  e.  be- 
cause ye  are  my  followers  and  bear  my  name,  diliuse  my  doctrines 
and  promote  my  cause.  For  a  testimony  to  the  true  religion  and  the 
claims  of  Christ  as  the  Messiah.  Against  them,  or  more  exactly,  to 
them,  i.  e.  the  rulers  just  referred  to,  without  indicating  the  effect  upon 
them.  This  prediction  was  fulfilled  in  the  apostles,  as  we  know  from 
the  example  of  the  only  ones  whose  history  has  been  recorded  (see 
Acts  4,  8.  5,  27.  12.  3.  16,  20.  17,  19.  18,  12.  22,  30.  24,  1.  25,  2.  2G, 
1.  2  Tim.  4,  IG.)  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  extending  the  imme- 
diate application  of  the  words  beyond  them. 

10.  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  publislied  among  all 

nations. 

As  the  corresponding  part  of  Matthew  (24,  14)  occurs  later  in  our 
Lord's  discourse,  some  consider  it  misplaced  in  Mark's  account ;  but  as 
all  the  manuscripts  assign  it  this  position,  we  must  regard  it  as  at  least 
appropriate,  if  not  actually  uttered  in  this  connection.  Nor  is  there 
any  incongruity  or  incoherence  in  this  collocation,  since  the  next  verse 
may  be  taken  as  a  natural  recurrence  to  the  present  or  the  proximate 
future,  after  referring  to  that  more  remote.  And  to  (or  into)  all  na- 
tions, an  indefinite  expression  answering  to  generally,  everyichere^ 
wherever  it  is  meant  to  be  diffused,  in  opposition  to  a  merely  local 
proclamation,  must  first,  i.  e.  first  of  all,  as  the  great  end  to  be  secured, 
and  as  a  necessary  consequence  before  you  can  expect  your  efforts  or 
your  sufferings  to  cease.  Be  imhlished,  heralded,  proclaimed,  the  gos- 
jjel,  standing  emphatically  at  the  end,  i.  e.  the  glad  news  of  my  advent 
and  salvation.  Even  in  reference  to  the  agencj^  of  the  apostles,  this 
was  substantially  fulfilled  in  a  very  general  extension  of  the  church 
before  the  downfal  of  Jerusalem. 

11.  But  when  they  shall  lead  (you),  and  deliver  you 

up,   take  no  thought  beforehand   what   ye  shall  speak, 

neither  do  ye  premeditate,  but  whatsoever  shall  be  given 

you  in  that  hour,  that  speak  ye  ;  for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak, 

but  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  exhortation  to  be  confident  and  undismayed  is  now  put  into  the 
peculiar  but  expressive  form  of  a  command  not  even  to  premeditate 
what  they  should  say  in  self-defence  before  the  magistrates  and  rulers 


352  MARK  13,  11.  12.  13. 

previously  mentioned.  They^  indefinitely,  as  in  v.  9.  Lead  you  and 
deliver  you,  in  Greek,  lead  you  delivering,  the  pronoun  standing  in  the 
same  relation  to  the  verb  and  participle,  ■which  together  express  a  simul- 
taneous action.  To  talce  tlwuglit,  in  old  English,  is  not  merely  to  think, 
but  to  be  anxious  or  solicitous,  which  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 
verb  here.  Shall  l)e  given,  or  more  exactly,  may  l)e  given,  a  construc- 
tion strongly  expressive  of  contingency.  In  that  hour,  or  time  (see 
above,  on  C,  35.  11, 11),  i.  e.  when  you  are  thus  delivered  and  arraigned. 
That  (literally,  this)  speal:,  (and  nothing  else) ;  it  is  not  merely  an  en- 
couraging assurance,  but  a  positive  command  to  mix  nothing  of  their 
own  with  w^hat  was  thus  communicated  to  them.  The  same  remarlv 
applies  to  the  next  clause,  ye  are  not  the  (persons)  spealcing,  hut  (it  is) 
the  Holy  Spirit.  This  means,  not  simply  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would 
provide  for  them  and  spare  them  the  necessity  of  self-defence,  but  also 
that  they  must  not  interfere  with  this  mysterious  advocate,  but  look 
upon  themselves  as  nothing  more  than  vehicles  or  cliJtnnels  of  his  reve- 
lations. 

12.  1^0 w.  the  brother  shall  betray  the  brother  to  death, 
and  the  father  the  son,  and  cliildren  shall  rise  np  against 
(their)  parents,  and  shall  cause  them  to  be  put  to  death. 

This  verse  carries  out  the  idea  of  the  ninth  with  a  fearful  definite- 
ness  and  distinctness,  by  explaining  the  vague  subject  of  the  verb  there, 
as  including  not  only  enemies  but  friends,  the  nearest  friends.  In  other 
words,  they  must  prepare  themselves  for  the  disruption  of  the  tenderest 
ties.  Note  may  seem  to  introduce  an  argument  or  indicate  a  change  of 
topic ;  but  in  Greek  it  is  the  usual  connective  (Se)  elsewhere  rendered 
and  or  hut.  The  nouns  in  the  original  are  without  the  article,  which 
not  only  adds  to  the  rapidity  and  vigour  of  the  sentence,  but  brings  out 
the  different  relations  more  distinctly  and  vividly,  hrother  and  hrothery 
father  and  son,  children  and  2)are7its.  Betray  is  the  same  verb  that  is 
translated  deliver  up  in  vs.  9.  11,  and  is  used  here  in  precisely  the  same 
sense.  There  is  a  needless  and  enfeebling  circumlocution  in  the  version 
of  the  last  clause,  which  means  simply,  tJiey  will  Jcill  them  (ov  j^ut  them 
to  death.)  The  whole  verse  is  merely  an  amplification  of  the  ground  or 
reason  of  the  exhortation  at  the  beginning  of  v.  9.  But  ye,  take  heed 
to  yourselves,  for  dangerous  and  tr3'ing  times  are  just  before  you. 

13.  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  (men)  for  my  name's 
sake  ;  but  he  that  shall  endure  unto  the  end,  the  same 
shall  be  saved. 

This  verse  caps  the  climax  of  anticipated  horrors  by  requiring  them 
to  be  prepared  not  only  for  unnatural  but  universal  hatred,  founded  not 
upon  any  thing  belonging  to  themselves,  but  on  that  which  might  have 
been  expected  to  protect  them,  their  relation  to  their  master.  For  (or 
on  account  of)  my  name,  not  only  because  you  bear  it  and  invoke  it, 


MAKK   13,  13.  14.  353 

but  because  of  all  that  it  expresses  and  implies.  In  a  word,  he  exhorts 
them  to  prepare  for  the  worst,  but  at  the  same  time  assures  them  that 
the  (one)  2^ersevering  and  enduring  (for  the  Greek  verb  expresses  both 
ideas)  to  the  end,  not  a  fixed  point  but  a  relative  expression  (as  in  v. 
7),  meaning  the  extreme  or  uttermost  of  the  trials  through  which  any 
one  is  called  to  pass,  shall  de  saved,  rescued,  finally  delivered  from 
them.  He  promises  them  no  exemption  from  the  common  lot,  but 
rather  intimates  peculiar  trials,  both  in  kind  and  in  degree,  yet  with 
the  cheering  promise  of  escape  at  last.  Here  again  the  terms  of  the 
prediction,  although  in  themselves  appropriate  to  the  apostles  and  to 
some  extent  realized  in  their  experience,  seem  intended  to  embrace  a 
wider  scope  and  to  provide  for  a  variety  of  other  cases.  What  is  most 
important  to  observe,  however,  is,  that  here  ends  the  negative  part  of 
Christ's  discourse,  in  which  he  shows  them  what  are  not  the  signs  for 
which  they  asked,  and  teaches  them  that  neither  the  assumption  of  his 
name,  nor  wars,  nor  international  commotions,  nor  intestine  strife,  nor 
providential  calamities,  nor  persecution,  nor  the  severing  of  the  nearest 
ties,  nor  the  hatred  of  Christ's  followers  for  his  own  sake,  however 
dreadful  in  themselves,  are  any  sign  of  his  approach,  to  put  an  end  to 
the  existing  state  of  things  ;  for  through  all  these  men  may  pass  unin- 
jured and  survive  them. 

14.  But  when  ye  sliall  see  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion, spoken  of  by  Daniel  the  prophet,  standing  where  it 
ought  not — let  him  that  readetli  understand— then  let  them 
that  be  in  Jndea  flee  to  the  mountains : 

Here  begins  the  positive  part  of  his  discourse,  or  his  direct  answer 
to  the  question  of  the  four  disciples  in  v.  4.  But  may  here  have  its 
proper  adversative  force,  equivalent  to  saying,  on  the  other  hand, 
when  ye  shall  see,  or  more  exactly,  ichen  ye  see,  another  aorist  subjunc- 
tive (see  above,  on  v.  7),  the  al)omination  of  desolation  (or  the  desolating 
abomination'),  an  expression  borrowed  from  the  prophet  Daniel  (9,  27), 
and  applied  in  the  Apocrypha  (1  Mace.  1.  54)  to  the  sacrilegious  profana- 
tion of  the  altar  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  The  first  noun  in  Hebrew  de- 
notes originally  any  thing  disgusting  or  revolting,  but  is  specially  applied 
in  usage  to  objects  of  religious  abhorrence,  and  especially  to  every  thing 
connected  with  idolatry  and  heathenism.  The  epithet  attached  to  it 
means  wasting,  desolating,  and  is  j^articularly  used  to  denote  the  devas- 
tations incident  to  war.  The  combination  of  the  two  suggests  the  com- 
plex idea  of  a  heathen  conquest,  which,  to  the  vast  majority  of  readers 
in  all  ages,  has  appeared  peculiarly  expressive  of  the  Roman  triumph 
over  Israel  and  destruction  of  the  Holy  City  under  Titus  (compare  Luke 
21,  20),  although  some  have  ingeniouslj'-  attempted  to  explain  it  of 
moral  and  religious  depravation  from  within.  The  (one)  spol'eii  ofhy 
Daniel  the  prophet  is  excluded  by  the  latest  critics  as  an  unauthorized 
assimilation  to  the  text  of  Matthew  (24, 15.)  Standing  where  it  ought 
not  (or  must  not),  i.  e.  in  a  holy  place  as  here  expressed  by  Matthew 


354  MARK  13,  14.  15. 

(24, 15.)  Let  the  {one)  reading  attend  (or  understand)^  a  parenthetical 
command,  referred  by  some  to  Christ  himself,  in  which  case  it  is  a 
monition  to  the  readers  of  the  prophet,  and  would  here  be  out  of  place, 
unless  the  reference  to  Daniel  be  a  part  of  the  true  text.  Another  ex- 
planation, which  may  be  said  to  be  a  favourite  with  the  modern  writers, 
understands  this  clause  as  an  interjectional  suggestion  of  the  evangelist 
himself,  directing  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  this  remarkable  quota- 
tion and  prediction.  But  why  should  both  evangelists  make  the  same 
interjectional  suggestion  at  the  same  place,  without  an}^  thing  in  Christ's 
words  to  occasion  it?  As  to  the  mention  of  the  prophet  Daniel,  it  is 
not  absolutely  needed  to  give  meaning  to  the  admonition,  since  every 
Jewish  hearer  would  at  once  recognize  it  as  a  citation  of  a  well-known 
passage  in  a  well-known  prophet.  Or  if  the  admonition  does  necessarily 
imply  a  previous  mention  of  the  prophet,  it  furnishes  an  argument  of  no 
small  weight  in  favour  of  the  textus  receptus.  As  a  signal  instance  of 
perverted  ingenuity  it  may  be  mentioned,  that  one  of  the  earlier  neolo- 
gists  of  Germany  explained  this  as  a  caution  to  the  reader  against 
thinking  this  the  genuine  and  proper  sense  of  Daniel's  language  !  Tlien^ 
in  that  case,  you  will  have  seen  a  sign  at  last  of  my  approach,  and  may 
begin  to  act  accordingly.  Then  let  the  {disciples)  in  Judeaflee  (escape) 
into  the  mountains  or  the  highlands  of  the  interior  (see  above,  on  3, 
13.  5,  5),  as  the  Christians  in  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  according  to 
Eusebius,  did  flee  beyond  them  to  Pella,  on  the  northern  frontier  of 
Perea.  The  full  force  of  this  exhortation  cannot  be  perceived  except 
by  viewing  it  in  contrast  with  the  former  part  of  the  discourse,  in  which 
he  accumulates  what  seem  to  be  suflBcient  causes  of  alarm  and  flight, 
but  only  to  forbid  them.  *  Though  thousands  should  appear  professing 
to  be  Christ,  though  every  nation  in  the  world  should  be  involved  in 
war,  though  all  the  ties  of  nature  should  be  broken,  and  though  men 
should  hate  me  so  intensely  as  to  persecute  you  purely  upon  my  ac- 
count, no  matter,  remain  quiet,  ''in  your  patience  possess  ye  your 
souls  "  (Luke  21, 19.)  These  are  fearful  evils  and  will  lead  to  dreadful 
suffering,  but  they  are  not  signs  of  my  appearing.  But  when  you  see 
a  heathen  host  triumphant  upon  sacred  ground,  then,  then  flee  from 
Judca  to  the  mountains,  for  a  great  catastrophe  is  then  at  hand.' 

15.  16.  And  let  liim  that  is  on  the  house-top  not  go 
down  into  the  house,  neither  enter  (therein),  to  take  any 
thing  out  of  his  house  ;  and  let  him  that  is  in  the  Held  not 
turn  back  again  for  to  take  uj)  his  garment. 

These  arc  mere  amplifications  of  the  precept  to  make  haste,  drawn 
in  part  from  oriental  usage.  The  house-toiy  (literally,  dome^  which 
originally  meant  a  building,  then  a  roof,  and  now  a  round  roof),  is  here 
the  tiat  roof  of  the  east,  often  resorted  to  for  sleep,  retirement,  praj^er, 
or  recreation,  and  communicating  with  the  street  or  field  by  stairs  upon 
the  outside,  to  Avhich  some  suppose  allusion  here,  while  others  under- 
stand it  as  an  exhortation  to  escape  by  flight  along  the  tops  of  the  con- 


MARK  13,  16-19.  355 

tiguous  houses  to  the  city  wall,  in  either  case  without  descending  into 
the  interior  of  the  dwelling,  even  for  the  most  necessary  purpose.  The 
same  idea  of  extreme  haste  is  vividly  excited  by  the  image  of  the  husband- 
man or  farmer  fleeing  from  the  field  without  returning  to  that  part  of 
it  (or  to  the  house)  where  he  has  laid  aside  his  upper  garment.  The 
(one)  heing  in  thejield^  literally,  i7ito  it,  i.  e.  who  has  gone  (and  still  re- 
mains) there. 

IT.  But  woe  to  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them 
that  give  suck  in  those  days  ! 

The  same  impression  of  extreme  haste  and  confused  flight  is  now 
heightened  b}^  an  exclamation  of  compassion  for  those  who  are  retarded 
even  by  the  tenderest  affections  and  the  most  beloved  encumbrances. 
Woe  to  is  here  equivalent  to  alas  for,  as  an  expression  not  of  wrath  but 
'pity.  Those  with  child  (literally,  having  in  the  iDomb).  because  unfit  to 
travel ;  suckling  (giving  suck),  because  unable  to  escape  without  aban- 
doning their  infants.  In  those  days,  i.  e.  when  the  sign  of  this  great 
revolution  shall  appear. 

18.  And  pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in  the  winter. 

The  same  impression  is  still  further  strengthened  by  exhorting 
them  to  pray,  thus  suggesting  their  absolute  dependence  upon  God  for 
such  a  mercy,  that  these  premonitory  signs  may  be  so  ordered  as  to 
time,  that  their  flight  may  not  be  hindered  by  the  season  or  the  weather, 
the  Greek  word  signifying  properly  a  storm,  and  then  the  stormy  season 
or  the  winter.  These  four  verses  (15-18)  contain  no  new  information 
or  prediction,  but  merely  serve  to  enforce  and  amplify  the  precept  in 
the  last  clause  of  v.  14,  and  in  conjunction  with  it  to  convey  the 
strongest  possible  impression  of  urgent  danger  and  precipitate  escape. 

19.  For  (in)  those  days  shall  be  affliction,  such  as  was 
not  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation  which  God  created 
unto  this  time,  neither  shall  be. 

All  this  implies  that  the  evils  thus  to  be  escaped  must  be  extraor- 
dinary both  in  kind  and  in  degree,  which  implication  is  now  exchanged 
for  a  direct  assertion,  in  a  hyperbolical  but  not  fictitious  form,  that  the 
distress  against  which  they  are  here  warned,  and  from  which  they  are 
instructed  here  to  save  themselves,  would  be  without  a  parallel  in  hu- 
man history.  Although  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  attach  the 
strongest  meaning  to  these  strong  expressions,  it  is  certainly  desirable 
to  understand  them  strictl}^  if  we  can,  and  thus  avoid  the  disadvantage 
which  alwa3^s  accompanies  the  process  of  extenuating  and  diluting  the 
expressions  even  of  uninspired  and  human  speakers.  Now  it  is,  to  say 
the  least,  a  singular  coincidence  that  the  contemporary  narratives  of  the 
Jewish  War,  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  its  capture,  and  the  sufferings  in- 
cident to  both,  describe  the  latter  in  such  terms  as  make  our  Lord's 


356  MAKK  13,  19.  20.  21. 

prediction  any  thing  but  hyperbolical  in  form  or  substance.  Referring 
the  reader  for  details  to  Josephus,  and  to  those  modern  writers  wlio 
have  wrought  up  his  materials  in  other  forms,  we  may  simply  say  on 
the  authorit}'  of  these  contemporary  statements  which  there  seems  to 
be  no  reason  for  disputing  or  at  least  no  means  of  refuting,  that  there 
probably  has  never  been  so  great  an  amount  of  human  suffering  from 
physical  and  moral  causes,  within  so  short  a  time  and  so  confined  a 
space,  as  in  the  last  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus.  This  not  only 
serves  to  vindicate  our  Lord's  prediction  from  the  imputation  of  ex- 
travagance, but  also  to  restrict  its  application  to  that  great  event,  the 
history  of  which  by  an  independent  Jewish  writer,  with  the  best  imag- 
inable opportunities  of  information,  so  remarkabl}''  illustrates  and  con- 
firms his  language. 

20.  And  except  that  the  Lord  had  shortened  those 
days,  no  flesh  should  be  saved ;  but  for  the  elect's  sake, 
whom  he  hath  chosen,  he  hath  shortened  the  days. 

As  if  even  this  comparison  with  other  times  of  suffering  were  not 
enough,  our  Lord  adds  the  finishing  stroke  to  his  appalling  picture,  by 
declarino;  that  distresses  so  intense  would  be  too  much  for  human 
weakness  to  endure,  unless  contracted  by  a  special  divine  interposition. 
Except  tliat  (literally  ifnot^  unless)  the  Lord,  the  Sovereign  God,  Je- 
hovah (see  above  on  12,  29.  37),  had  shortened,  docked,  curtailed,  a 
Greek  verb  primarily  signifying  amputation  or  mutilation  of  the  limbs 
of  animals,  and  hei'e  applied,  by  a  lively  figure,  to  the  abbreviation 
of  a  period  of  time ;  not  to  the  shortening  of  the  several  days,  as 
some  suppose,  but  to  that  of  their  aggregate  amount.  JSfo  Jiesh,  no 
human  life,  with  distinct  allusion  to  its  frailty  and  infirmity,  should, 
J)e,  (or  rather  could  le)  saved,  i.  c.  delivered  from  destruction.  But 
this  condition  is  complied  with.  For  the  salce  of  (or  on  account  of) 
the  elect  (or  chosen  ones),  not  those  of  men,  but  those  whom  God  has 
chosen  to  be  thus  excepted.  Hath  shortened  the  days,  in  his  own  purpose, 
which  secures  their  being  actually  shortened  hereafter. 

21.  And  tlien,  if  any  man  shall  say  to  you,  Lo,  here 
(is)  Christ,  or  lo,  (he  is)  there,  believe  (him)  not. 

And  then,  at  that  time  also,  i.  e.  at  the  time  of  extreme  suffering 
just  described,  or  at  a  period  immediately  succeeding  it,  no  less  than 
at  the  time  refei-red  to  in  vs.  5.  G,  whether  earlier  or  later,  there  will 
be  danger  of  delusion  from  false  Christs  and  false  prophets.  //'  amj 
(one),  any  person,  any  body,  man  or  woman,  say  to  you,  Lo  (behold, 
look,  see)  liere  (is)  the  Christ  (or  the  Messiah),  or  lo  there  (he  is),  be- 
lieve not  (liim  or  it),  the  man  himself  or  what  he  says  to  you.  This 
seems  to  imply  that  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  signs  of  which  had  just 
been  given  (vs.  14-20),  was  not  to  be  a  visible  personal  appearance; 
for  if  it  had  been,  the  declaration,  he  is  here,  or  he  is  there,  would  not 
Lave  been  necessarily  and  invariably  false,  and  the  disciples  could  not 


MARK  13,  21.  22.  23.  857 

have  been  charged  to  disbelieve  it,  from  whatever  quarter  it  proceeded. 
This  consideration,  taken  in  connection  Avith  the  wonderful  coincidence, 
already  spoken  of,  between  the  previous  description  and  occurrences 
attending  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  seems  to  establish  the  important 
fact,  that  in  a  part  at  least  of  this  prophetical  discourse,  the  coming 
of  Christ  is  an  invisible  impersonal  one,  and  that  any  teaching  to  the 
contrary,  respecting  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  might  be  rejected  as 
delusive  and  unauthorized. 

22.  For  false  Christs  and  false  prophets  shall  rise,  and 
shall  fihew  signs  and  wonders,  to  seduce,  if  (it  were)  pos- 
sible, even  the  elect. 

As  the  preceding  admonition  was  conditional  in  form  (?/  any  one 
say),  and  might  therefore  seem  to  be  suggestive  merely  of  a  possible 
contingency,  the  fact  is  now  explicitly  affirmed,  that  such  impostors 
would  undoubtedly  appear,  with  the  remarkable  addition,  that  their 
claims  would  be  supported  by  miraculous  credentials.  Signs  and  icon- 
ders  is  a  common  phrase  for  miracles,  exhibiting  them  under  the  two- 
fold aspect  of  proofs  or  attestations  and  of  prodigies  or  portents.  SJwio, 
literally,  gke,  which  has  been  taken  in  three  different  senses  ;  that  of 
offering  or  promising,  without  performing  ;  that  of  giving  out,  profess- 
ing, or  pretending ;  and  that  of  really  affording  or  exhibiting.  The 
last,  as  being  the  strict  sense  of  the  expression,  is  entitled  to  the  prefer- 
ence without  some  positive  reason  for  departing  from  it.  Now  the  only 
reason  that  can  be  suggested  is  the  supposed  improbability  of  the  thing 
predicted,  and  the  absence  of  historical  proof  that  the  prediction  was 
fulfilled  in  this  sense.  But  we  do  read  on  the  one  hand  of  extravagant 
pretensions,  and  on  the  other  of  extraordinary  portents,  just  before  or 
at  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  how  far  these  things 
were  connected,  may  be  reasonably  made  a  question.  This  prediction, 
in  its  strict  sense,  is  among  the  passages  which  seem  to  show  that  even 
real  miracles  are  not  sufficient  of  themselves  to  prove  the  truth  of  any 
doctrine,  but  only  one  part  of  a  complex  demonstration,  at  once  sensi- 
ble, rational,  and  spiritual.  The  last  clause  expresses  both  the  ten- 
dency and  purpose  of  these  lying  wonders,  to  seduce,  to  the  seducing  or 
deceiving  aicay  from  (the  truth  and  from  the  church),  if  possible  (im- 
plying that  it  is  not),  even  (or  also,  no  less  than  others)  the  elect,  those 
chosen  to  salvation,  Isoth  in  the  proximate  and  lower  sense  of  present 
deliverance  from  such  deception,  and  in  the  higher  one  of  ultimate  de- 
liverance from  sin  and  suffeiing  (see  above,  on  v.  20.) 

23.  But  take  ye  heed  ;  behold,  I  have  foretold  you  all 

(things.) 

He  now  exhorts  them  to  do  their  part  by  becoming  caution,  as  he 
had  done  his  by  timely  admonition.  But  (on  the  other  hand)  do  ye 
(emphatic  because  not  necessarily  expressed  in  Greek  as  it  is  in  Eng- 
lish) looh  {out),  see  (to  it),  be  on  your  guard ;  for  if  you  fail  to  do  so 


358  MARK  13,  23.  24. 

it  will  not  be  my  fault.  Beliold^  a  word  entirely  different  from  that 
immediatel}'  preceding,  and  in  this  connection  nearly  equivalent  to  our 
phrase,  you  see,  you  know.  /  have  foretold,  or  told  you  beforehand,  an 
expression  not  confined  to  prophecy  or  supernatural  prediction,  but  oc- 
casionalljr  used  to  express  mere  prioi-ity  of  time  or  order,  a  distinction 
here  of  no  importance  where  the  two  things  coincide,  as  he  had  not 
only  spoken  but  predicted  it  beforehand.  This  appeal  to  the  apostles  as 
in  danger  of  delusion,  and  responsible  for  the  use  of  the  prescribed 
means  of  escape  from  it,  implies  that  the  reference  is  still  to  those  times, 
without  any  indication  of  a  wider  or  ulterior  purpose. 

24.  But  in  those  clays,  after  that  tribulation,  the  sun 
shall  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light. 

The  language  of  this  verse  is  entirely  perspicuous ;  but  as  to  its 
application  and  connection,  there  are  two  questions  of  no  small  diffi- 
culty and  importance.  The  first  is,  what  we  are  to  understand  by 
those  days^  and  as  a  subordinate  point,  that  tribulation  ?  The  other  is, 
in  what  sense  the  great  physical  changes  mentioned  in  the  last  clause 
are  to  be  explained,  as  figures  for  political  and  social  revolutions,  or  as 
literal  mutations  in  the  face  of  nature.  These  questions  are  by  no 
means  independent  of  each  other,  the  solution  of  the  second  being  really 
involved  in  the  solution  of  the  first.  In  a  case  so  doubtful  and  uncer- 
tain, where  the  speculations  and  disputes  of  ages  have  succeeded  only 
in  presenting  new  alternatives,  without  providing  new  means  of  deci- 
sive choice  between  them,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  record  the  two  most 
plausible  and  popular  hypotheses,  to  which  indeed  all  others  may  be 
readily  reduced.  The  first  assumes  that  this  is  a  direct  continuation 
of  the  previous  prediction,  so  that  those  days  are  the  days  of  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  and  tliat  distress  the  unexampled  suffering  by 
which  it  was  preceded  and  accompanied.  From  this  assumption,  by  a 
necessary  consequence,  it  follows  that  the  changes  mentioned  in  this 
verse  and  the  next  are  figures  for  national  and  social  revolution  ;  that 
the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  (predicted  in  v.  20)  is  the  same  invisible 
coming  which  took  place  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (see  above,  on 
V.  21) ;  and  lastly,  that  the  angels  of  v.  27  are  the  preachers  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  gathering  there  ascribed  to  them  the  planting  and  ex- 
tension of  the  church  among  the  Gentiles.  It  is  vain  to  say,  in  opposi- 
tion to  this  view,  that  it  converts  into  figures  what  may  just  as  well  be 
literally  understood;  because  so  long  as  it  remains  true  that  some 
prophecies  are  not  to  be  strictly  interpreted  (for  instance  that  of  Mal- 
achi  respecting  Elijah,  as  explained  by  Christ  himself  in  9, 12. 13),  it 
will  still  be  possible  to  put  a  similar  construction  upon  others,  and  will 
still  be  made  a  question  whether  this  is  right  or  wrong  in  any  given 
case,  until  decided  by  the  actual  event,  like  the  proi)hccies  respecting 
our  Lord's  advent  and  the  circumstances  of  his  passion  (see  above, 
p.  342.)  The  adherents  of  the  figurative  explanation  can  appeal  to  a 
long  series  of  Old  Testament  predictions,  where  it  seems  just  as  natural 
and  clear  to  them  as  it  seems  irrational  and  false  to  their  opponents. 


M  A  K  K  13,  24.  25.  359 

The  question  therefore  cannot  be  decided,  either  npon  abstract  princi- 
ples of  hermeneutics,  or  from  the  general  analogy  of  scripture,  since  the 
principles  are  really  the  subject  of  dispute,  and  the  analogies  adduced 
are  just  as  doubtful  as  the  case  before  us.  The  only  way  in  which  the 
ultimate  solution  of  the  question  can  be  hastened  or  facilitated,  is  by 
appealing  to  the  context  and  inquiring  whether  the  construction  which 
has  now  been  stated  is  the  simplest  and  most  natural.  In  favour  of  it 
is  the  consecution  of  the  passage  and  the  intimate  connection  with  the 
previous  context,  without  any  explicit  indication  of  a  change  of  subject. 
On  the  other  hand  it  may  be  urged  that  such  transitions  are  not  al- 
ways formally  announced,  but  often  slightly  though  intelligibly  hinted, 
and  that  even  those  who  deny  the  change  of  subject  here,  are  obliged 
to  admit  it  at  some  later  point  of  the  prediction,  where  it  is  no  more 
self-evident  or  certain  than  at  this.  But  is  there  any  indication,  even 
a  slight  one,  that  our  Lord  here  passes  to  a  more  remote  futurity  ? 
Such  an  indication  some  discover  in  the  conjunction  hut  and  pronoun 
those^  which  although  it  may  possibly  mean  those  same,  or  the  days 
just  mentioned,  may  also  mean,  and  it  is  said  with  closer  adherence  to 
its  primary  usage,  as  denoting  a  remoter  object,  those  other,  or  the  days 
spoken  of  before  but  not  in  the  immediate  context,  or  even  though  not 
previously  spoken  of  at  all  in  this  discourse,  yet  readily  suggested  and 
intelligible  from  its  whole  design  and  purport.  According  to  this  view 
of  the  passage,  after  having  warned  the  twelve  of  the  physical  and 
moral  risks  to  which  they  must  expect  to  be  exposed  in  the  approach- 
ing crisis  of  the  Jewish  church  and  state,  he  says,  hut  in  those  (other) 
days,  after  that  tribulation  (without  saying  how  long  after),  there 
shall  be  a  change,  not  only  in  the  church  and  state,  but  in  the  frame  of 
nature,  and  then  shall  the  Son  of  Man  appear  again,  not  as  in  the  other 
case  invisibly,  but  visibly  and  in  his  proper  person,  in  the  clouds  and 
with  his  angels,  who  shall  gather  together  the  elect  from  every  quarter. 
This  exegetical  hypothesis  has  certainly  the  great  advantage  of  apply- 
ing the  strong  language  of  the  passage  to  a  change  which  all  believe  to 
be  predicted  elsewhere,  although  some  deny  that  it  is  foretold  here. 
As  to  the  question  of  connection  and  the  sense  to  be  attached  to  those 
days,  it  is  so  minute  and  subtle,  as  a  question  both  of  logic  and  phi- 
lology, that  even  the  most  candid  and  judicious  may  arrive  at  YQry  dif- 
ferent conclusions.  These  remarks  have  reference  to  the  report  of 
Mark  alone  3  the  additional  difficulties  which  arise  from  the  word  im- 
mediately used  by  jNIatthew  (24,  29),  and  the  mode  of  reconciling  that 
expression  with  the  last  view  here  presented,  can  be  most  conveniently 
considered  and  disposed  of  in  the  exposition  of  that  gospel. 

25.  And  tlie  stars  of  lieaven  shall  fall,  and  tlie  powers 
tliat  are  in  Leaven  shall  be  shaken. 

Shall  fall,  or  more  exactly,  shall  he  falling,  which  unusual  expres- 
sion may  denote  a  continued  rather  than  a  sudden  fall,  whether  literal 
or  tropical.  From  its  not  being  said  upon  the  earth  (as  in  Rev.  9.  1), 
some  infer  that  the  stars  are  here  described  as  falling  out  (the  strict 


360  MARK  13,  25.  26.  27 


sense  of  the  Greek  word),  i.  e.  going;  out,  expiring  (compare  Rom.  9,  6. 
1  Cor.  13,  8.  Jas.  1, 11.  1  Pet.  1,  24),  or  apparently  falling  out  of 
heaven,  like  what  are  vulgarly  called  shooting  stars.  The  'powers 
{those)  in  heaven,  are  by  some  understood  to  mean  the  heavenly  host 
(or  forces),  an  expression  applied  elsewhere  both  to  the  heavenly  bodies 
and  to  angels.  Others,  with  less  probability,  attach  to  it  the  abstract 
sense  of  physical  forces,  or  the  powers  of  nature,  those  mysterious  in- 
fluences by  which  the  celestial  motions  and  phenomena  are  caused  and 
regulated.  The  essential  idea,  upon  either  of  these  suppositions,  still 
remains  the  same,  namely,  that  of  total  change  in  the  appearance  of  the 
heavens.  Shalcen,  a  Greek  verb  originally  denoting  the  commotion  of 
the  sea,  but  applied  in  usage  to  all  violent  agitation,  whether  physical 
or  moral  (compare  Matt.  11,  7.  Luke  6,  38.  48,  with  Acts  17, 13.  27, 
4.  2,  2.) 

26.  And  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  comhig 
in  the  clonds  with  great  power  and  glory. 

And  then,  i.  e.  according  to  the  first  interpretation  above  given  (on 
v.  24),  at  the  same  time,  that  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  accord- 
ing to  the  other,  then  and  not  before,  at  the  time  of  the  final  consum- 
mation just  predicted.  The  Son  of  2Ian,  the  Messiah,  now  in  his  state 
of  humiliation,  but  then  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  power.  In  clouds 
(without  the  article),  not  in  the  ordinary  clouds  of  heaven,  but  sur- 
rounded by  such  vapoury  yet  luminous  integuments  as  anciently  dis- 
closed and  at  the  same  time  veiled  the  glory  of  Jehovah's  presence  (see 
above,  on  9,  7,  and  compare  Ex.  14,  20.  16, 10.  19.  9.  Num.  10,  37.  Ps. 
97,  2.  Dan.  7, 13.)  With  ijoiccr  much  and  glory,  i.  e.  not  only  in  the 
actual  possession  of  divine  power  and  authority,  but  also  with  a  visible 
display  of  it,  according  to  the  scriptural  usage  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
terms  translated  glory  (Ps.  68, 17.  Acts  7,  53.  Heb.  12,  22.) 

27.  And  then  shall  he  send  his  angels,  and  shall  gather 
toirether  his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  the  uttermost 
part  of  the  earth  to  the  uttermost  part  of  heaven. 

The  presence  of  the  angels,  implied  in  the  preceding  verse,  as  in 
ever}''  mention  of  a  theophany  or  divine  manifestation  (see  above,  on  8, 
38,  and  compare  Luke  9,  24.  9,  52),  is  here  distinctly  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  their  office  as  ministering  spirits  to  the  heirs  of  salvation 
(Heb.  1, 14),  and  especially  as  sent  forth  to  assemble  them  on  this  occa- 
sion. Those  who  understand  this  as  referring  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
and  its  effects,  either  take  angels  in  its  primary  and  wide  sense  of  mes- 
sengers, or  in  the  usual  sense  as  figures  for  the  preachers  of  the 
gospel,  or  as  themselves  invisibly  but  really  emploj^ed  in  its  diifusion. 
Gather  together  is  in  Greek  still  stronger,  as  the  double  compound  verb 
suggests  the  additional  idea  of  a  common  centre,  or  rallying  point, 
rendezvous.  The  four  icinds,thQ  cardinal  j^oints  from  which  the  winds 
blow,  used  in  prophecy  for  the  boundaries  of  the  whole  earth  and  for 


MARK  13,  27.  28.  29.  361 

all  between  them  (Ezek.  37,  9.  Dan.  7,  2.  11,  4.)  From  eartli's  end  to 
lieaveri^s  end,  without  the  article  prefixed  to  either  of  the  nouns,  i.  e. 
from  end  to  end  of  the  world  or  visible  creation,  of  which  heaven  and 
earth  are  the  two  great  divisions.  Some,  with  less  probability,  suppose 
an  allusion  to  the  apparent  j  unction  of  the  earth  and  sky  at  the  horizon 
or  the  boundary  of  tision.  But  in  either  case,  the  main  idea  is  the 
same,  that  of  assemblage  from  the  whole  world  in  its  widest  extension 
and  remotest  bounds. 

28.  Now  learn  a  parable  of  tlie  fig-tree.  When*  lier 
branch  is  yet  tender,  and  piitteth  forth  leaves,  ye  know 
that  summer  is  near. 

Now  is  not  an  adverb  of  time  {vvv).  but  the  usual  connective  {be) 
meaning  simply  and  or  hut,  but  not  with  the  strong  adversative  force 
of  the  conjunction  {aWa)  at  the  beginning  of  v.  24.  From  the  fig-tree 
(i.  e.  as  proceeding  from  it  or  afforded  by  it)  learn  tlie  parahle  (i.  e.  the 
analogy  appropriate  to  this  case  and  throwing  light  upon  it.)  Her 
dranch^a  literal  translation  of  the  Greek,  in  which  the  word  for  fig-tree 
is  feminine.  The  possessive  its  appears  to  have  been  unknown  at  the 
date  of  our  translation,  and  the  old  form  thereof  i^  avoided  here  as  awk- 
ward and  cacophonous.  Has  already  become  soft  (or  tender)  with  the 
flowing  sap,  and  thus  prepared  for  germination.  Is  yet,  referring  to  a  pre- 
vious condition,  as  still  lasting,  conveys  the  very  opposite  idea  to  the 
one  intended,  which  is  that  of  change  at  the  return  of  spring.  Puts 
forth,  lets  grow,  or,  if  taken  as  a  passive  form,  are  put  forth,  which 
however  is  less  natural  and  less  accordant  with  the  half-personification 
of  the  fig-tree  in  the  words  preceding.  Ye  Tcnow  that  near  the  summer 
is,  one  of  our  Lord's  numerous  appeals,  not  only  to  the  processes  of 
nature,  but  to  the  business  and  experience  of  common  life,  to  illustrate 
moral  truth.  This  is  the  third  recorded  use  of  the  fig-tree  for  that 
purpose  (see  above,  on  11, 13,  and  compare  Luke  13,  5.) 

29.  So  ye  in  like  manner,  when  ye  shall  see  these 
things  come  to  pass,  know  that  it  is  nigh,  (even)  at  the 
doors. 

So  also  ye,  an  emphatic  form,  still  stronger  than  the  one  at  the  be- 
ginning of  V.  23,  and  serving  to  distinguish  his  immediate  hearers  from 
the  subject  of  the  verb  know  in  v.  28,  although  the  parties  are  identical. 
The  antithesis  really  intended  is  between  their  habits  of  external  obser- 
vation as  to  natural  changes  and  the  duty  of  analogous  attention  to 
far  more  important  moral  changes.  (Compare  Luke  12,  54-5G.)  Gome 
to  2'>ass,  or  rather  coming  to  pass,  happening.  They  must  not  wait  until 
the  signs  were  past  before  they  drew  their  conclusion  and  addressed 
themselves  to  action.  Know,  precisely  the  same  form  in  Greek  with 
that  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  there  translated  ye  Tcnoio  ;  but  this  for- 
tuitous coincidence  between  the  second  person  plural  of  the  present  in- 
dicative and  imperative,  is  one  of  the  few  ambiguities  belonging  to  the 
16 


362  MARK  13,  29.  SO. 


Greek  verb,  and  occasionally  making  the  construction  doubtful  (as  in 
John  14.  1),  although  here  the  sense  is  clear  from  the  connection,  even 
in  the  common  text ;  but  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critics  have 
the  passive  form  (yiPcoaKerai)  it  is  hnoicn.  (It)  is  nigh,  may  either 
mean  the  moral  or  figurative  summer,  corresponding  to  the  natural  or 
proper  one  in  the  preceding  verse ;  or  more  directly,  the  catastrophe  or 
consummation  which  the  figure  represented.  At  (the)  doors,  a  familiar 
and  expressive  figure  for  proximity  or  nearness,  which  is  rather  weak- 
ened than  enforced  by  addino;  even. 


'O 


30.  Yerily,  I  say  unto  you,  That  this  generation  sliall 
not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  done. 

Verily  (Amen),  I  (the  Son  of  Man)  say  to  you  (my  disciples  and 
apostles),  a  preliminary  formula  indicative,  as  usual,  of  something  to  bo 
uttered  peculiarly  solemn  and  important.  It  is  indeed  the  turning  point 
of  the  whole  question  as  to  the  period  referred  to  in  the  previous  con- 
text, and  might  be  described  (by  another  figure)  as  the  key  to  it,  but 
for  its  own  obscurity  and  various  interpretation.  Shall  not  pass,  the 
usual  aorist  subjunctive,  suggesting  rather  the  idea  that  it  may  or  can- 
not pass,  the  negative  future  being  necessarily  implied  though  not  ex- 
pressed. Be  done,  come  to  pass,  or  happen,  the  same  verb  that  is  used 
in  the  preceding  verse.  Pass,  pass  by,  or  pass  away,  a  verb  applied 
elsewhere  to  the  lapse  of  time  (as  in  14,  35  below,  and  in  Matt.  14, 15. 
Acts  27,  9.  1  Pet.  4,  3),  to  the  motions  of  men  (as  in  G,  48  above,  and 
in  Matt.  8,  28.  Luke  12,  37.  17,  7.  18,  37.  Acts  16,  8.  24,  7),  and  to 
the  disappearance  or  removal  of  inanimate  objects  (as  in  the  next  verse, 
and  in  Matt.  26,  39.  42.  Luke  16, 17.  2  Cor.  5, 17.  2  Pet.  3.  10.  Rev. 
21, 1.)  But  the  critical  word  in  this  critical  sentence  is  generation^ 
which  some  make  here  synonymous  with  race  or  nation,  and  apply  it 
to  the  Jews,  who  are  not  to  lose  their  separate  existence  until  all  these 
changes  have  been  realized.  This  gives  a  wide  scope  to  the  prophecy, 
and  readily  enables  us  to  transport  what  is  said  in  vs.  24-27  to  an  in- 
definitely distant  future.  But  although  some  English  writers,  for  this 
reason,  still  adhere  to  that  interpretation,  others  of  the  same  class,  and 
the  German  |jhilologists  almost  without  exception,  treat  it  as  a  sheer 
invention  without  any  authority  either  in  classical  or  Hellenistic  usage, 
so  that  some  of  the  best  lexicons  do  not  give  this  definition,  even  to 
condemn  it.  Of  the  few  alleged  examples,  chiefly  in  the  Septuagint 
version,  all  admit  of  being  taken  in  one  of  the  acknowledged  senses, 
W'hich  in  the  New  Testament  are  three  in  number,  all  reducible  to  one 
and  the  same  radical  idea,  that  of  a  contemporary  race,  or  the  aggre- 
gate of  those  living  at  the  same  time.  This  is  the  direct  sense  in  the 
great  majority  of  cases  (such  as  8,  12.  38.  9, 19.  Matt.  11, 16.  12,  39- 
45.  16,  4.  23,  36.  Luke  7,  31.  16,  8.  17,  25.  Acts  2,  40.  13,  36.  Phil.  2, 
15.  Ileb.  3, 10),  and  is  scarcely  modified  when  transferred  from  men 
to  time  (as  in  Acts  14, 16.  15,''21.  Eph.  3*  5.  21.  Col.  1,  26),  or  to  the 
stages  of  descent  and  degrees  of  genealogical  succession  (as  in  Matt.  1, 
17.)     Common  to  all  these  cases  is  the  radical  idea  oi  contemporaneous 


MARK  13,  30.  363 

existence,  which  it  would  be  monstrous  therefore  to  exclude  in  that  be- 
fore us.  as  we  must  do,  if  we  understand  it  of  the  whole  race  in  its  suc- 
cessive generations.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  unless  we  forge  a  mean- 
ing for  the  word  in  this  place,  which  is  not  only  unexampled  elsewhere, 
but  directly  contradictory  to  its  essential  meaning  everywhere,  we  must 
understand  our  Lord  as  saying,  that  the  contemporary  race  or  gener- 
ation, i.  e.  those  then  living,  should  not  pass  away  or  die  till  all  these 
prophecies  had  been  accomplished.  The  precise  time  designated  is  of 
no  importance ;  whether  a  generation  be  reckoned  at  its  maximum  (a 
hundred  years),  or  at  its  minimum  (thirty),  the  result  in  this  case  will 
be  still  the  same ;  for  although  the  great  mass  of  the  generation  might 
be  gone  within  the  shortest  of  these  periods,  some  would  still  survive 
to  represent  it,  as  we  know  that  one  of  the  men  here  addressed  did  ac- 
tually live  nearly,  if  not  quite,  seventy  years  longer.  The  choice  here 
does  not  lie  between  a  larger  or  a  smaller  fraction  of  a  century,  but  be- 
tween years  and  ages.  Those  who  apply  the  whole  preceding  context 
to  Christ's  coming  at  the  downfal  of  Jersusalem,  consider  that  inter- 
pretation as  required  by  the  verse  before  us ;  but  this  exegetical  ne- 
cessity is  not  acknowledged  on  the  part  of  those  who  give  a  wider  scope 
to  the  prediction.  Of  these  some  assume  another  change  of  subject,  or 
transition  from  a  remoter  to  a  proximate  futurity,  and  limit  all  these 
things  to  what  immediately  precedes.  Others  explain  do7ie  or  co7ne  to 
jxi.ss  as  meaning  shall  hegin  to  he  fulfilled^  so  far  as  to  ensure  the  rest 
of  the  fulfilment  which  has  been  proceeding  ever  since.  A  third  solu- 
tion proceeds  upon  the  general  assumption  that  this  prophecy,  like 
prophecy  in  general,  is  not  intended  to  predict  events  which  were  to 
happen  once  for  all  at  some  specific  juncture,  but  a  series  or  sequence 
of  events  which  should  often  be  repeated,  sometimes  on  a  large  and 
sometimes  on  a  small  scale,  now  in  this  place,  now  in  that,  here  in  one 
form,  there  in  another,  but  throughout  the  variations  with  a  con- 
stant adherence  to  the  original  essential  consecution  of  causes  and 
effects,  and  even  to  the  primary  form  of  the  prediction,  so  far  as  to 
make  each  fulfilment  recognisable  as  such  whenever  seen  upon  the  field 
of  history  or  actual  experience.  This  last  hypothesis,  which  might  be 
justly  questioned  as  a  mere  imagination  if  applied  to  this  case  only,  is 
in  fact  derived  from  an  extensive  induction  of  the  older  prophecies,  and 
only  secondaril}^  made  use  of  in  the  one  before  us.  By  one  or  another 
of  these  plausible  hypotheses,  the  words  of  Christ  in  this  verse  may  be 
taken  in  their  strict  sense,  without  necessarily  restricting  what  precedes  . 
to  a  proximate  futurity,  i.  e.  to  the  period  of  the  Roman  conquest  and 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  applying  at  least  some  parts  (for  example 
vs.  24-27)  to  his  second  advent  and  the  final  consummation.  The 
meaning  of  the  verse  before  us  then  will  be,  that  the  contemporary 
generation  should  not  wholly  pass  a^way  without  beholding  one  great 
cycle  of  fulfilment,  i.  e.  without  seeing  this  prophetic  picture  realized, 
as  to  all  its  essential  parts,  in  one  specific  instance,  although  not  exhaust- 
ed of  its  whole  prophetic  import,  which  is  yet  to  be  developed  in  a 
course  of  ages. 


3G4  MARK  13,  31.  32. 

31.  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words 
shall  not  pass  away. 

To  the  strong  asseveration  in  the  first  clause  of  the  preceding  verse, 
which  by  itself  has  the  foi'ce  of  the  most  solemn  oath,  our  Lord  now 
adds  another  most  emphatic  declaration  of  the  infallible  fulfilment  of  his 
prophecy,  applj^ing,  not  as  in  the  other  case,  to  that  one  sentence,  but 
to  the  whole  discourse  or  series  of  predictions.  The  meaning  is  not 
merely  that  his  word  can  no  more  pass  away  than  heaven  and  earth, 
implying  that  the  latter  is  impossible-;  for  although  the  established 
frame  of  nature,  or  existing  constitution  of  the  universe,  is  sometimes 
used  in  the  Old  Testament  as  the  strongest  expression  of  unchangeable 
stability  (e.  g.  in  Ps.  72,  7. 17.  89,  37.  Jer.  33,  25),  that  meaning  is  not 
only  less  accordant  with  New  Testament  usage,  but  is  here  forbidden 
by  the  structure  of  the  sentence,  the  first  clause  of  which  is  not  con- 
tingent or  conditional,  but  a  direct  and  positive  assurance  that  the  hea- 
ven and  the  earth,  with  the  article,  i.  e.  this  heaven  and  this  earth, 
which  you  regard  as  so  immutable^  shall  (i.  e.  certainly  will)  pass 
away  or  disappear,  cease  to  exist,  at  least  in  their  present  form.  But 
my  tcords,  what  I  say  in  general,  and  what  I  have  said  on  this  occasion 
in  particular,  not  only  shall  or  will  not  pass  away,  as  a  matter  of  or- 
dained and  settled  certainty,  but  could  not  in  any  case  or  possible  con- 
tingency, a  dillerence  suggested  by  the  change  of  the  indicative  future 
to  the  aorist  subjunctive.  Bass  away^  as  applied  to  words,  means, 
cease  to  be  true  or  prove  false,  or  in  any  way  whatever  fail  of  their 
accomplishment. 

32.  But  of  that  day  and  (that)  hour  knoweth  no  man, 
no,  not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son, 
but  the  Father. 

But  of  that  day,  the  same  emphatic  pronoun  that  occurs  above  in 
V.  24,  and  which  here  as  there  may  possibly  mean  that  (same)  day^  of 
which  I  have  just  spoken  (in  v.  30),  but  more  probably,  because  more 
agreeably  to  usage,  that  {otlier)  day^  of  which  I  si^oke  before  (in.  vs. 
24-27.)  And  that  hoin\  or  according  to  the  critics,  or  the  hour,  which 
is  merely  added  to  convey  still  more  precisely  the  idea  of  exact  time. 
1^0  one  knows  except  the  Father  \^  the  main  proposition,  the  intervening 
words  being  merel}''  a  parenthesis,  designed  to  strengthen  the  negation 
by  excluding  what  might  else  have  been  considered  probable  exceptions. 
No  one — {not  even  the  angels,  or  as  the  oldest  copy  reads,  an  angel  in 
heaven,  i.  e.  one  nearest  to  God  and  therefore  most  likely  to  know),  not 
even  the  Son — cxcejit  the  Father.  This  view  of  the  syntax  sliows  the 
absurdity  of  reading  no  man,  unless  it  be  in  some  pronominal  and 
vague  sense  which  the  word  has  lost  in  modern  English  (see  above,  on 
2,  21.  10. 18.)  It  also  seems  to  show  the  imi)ossibility  of  the  con- 
struction, nor  the  Son  except  (as  he  is  one  with)  the  Father,  which, 
though  true  in  logic  and  theology,  is  false  in  grammar.  The  difiiculty 
which  it  was  intended  to  remove,  is  obvious  and  very  great,  and  none 


MARK  13,  32.  33.  SG5 

the  less  because  peculiar  to  this  gospel,  where  the  words  stand  however 
in  all  ancient  manuscripts  and  versions,  though  in  some  with  an  addition 
(such  as  only  or  of  man)  intended  to  relieve  the  seeming  contradiction 
between  that  negation  and  the  omniscience  of  the  Saviour.  So  deeply 
was  this  difficulty  felt  in  ancient  times,  that  Ambrose  pronounced  the 
clause  an  Arian  interpolation,  as  if  the  Arians  could  have  had  the 
opportunity  of  making  it  in  all  known  copies,  or  having  it  would  only 
have  embraced  it  in  this  one  case  and  in  this  one  gospel !  Such  sub- 
terfuges are  no  longer  thought  of,  and  the  words  are  now  universally 
regarded  as  among  the  least  suspicious  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Another  ancient  method  of  escape,  not  critical  but  exegetical, 
is  that  suggested  by  Augustin,  who  by  Christ's  not  knowing  under- 
stands that  he  did  not  choose  to  tell,  as  tlfls  was  a  matter  not  intended 
to  be  known  by  the  disciples.  Not  only  far  more  candid,  but  immea- 
sureably  more  profound  and  satisfactory,  is  Calvin's  recognition  of  the 
words  in  their  most  obvious  and  strongest  sense,  as  the  statement  of 
a  truth  beyond  our  comprehension,  yet  not  more  so  than  the  whole 
mystery  of  godliness,  or  doctrine  of  the  incarnation,  which  involves 
the  coexistence  of  the  finite  and  the  infinite,  of  limitation  and  immen- 
sity, in  one  theanthropic  person.  Whether  this  be  represented  as  a 
suspension  or  repose  of  the  divinity  in  union  with  humanity,  or  called 
by  any  other  specious  name,  is  a  mere  question  of  philosophical  nomen- 
clature, the  decision  of  which  any  way  must  still  leave  the  difficulty 
where  it  found  it.  As  the  proof  of  Christ's  divinit}-  depends  on  no 
one  passage  nor  indeed  on  any  number  of  specific  proof-texts,  but  is  in- 
terwoven with  the  warp  and  woof  of  scriptural  theology,  it  cannot  be 
unravelled,  or  in  any  Avay  impaired,  by  the  fullest  admission  that,  in 
some  sense,  the  ignorance  of  men  and  angels,  with  respect  to  the  pre- 
cise time  of  the  final  consummation,  was  shared  by  the  Son  himself. 
That  such  a  declaration  should  be  made  at  all,  is  wonderful  enough, 
but  scarcely  credible  on  any  supposition,  or  in  any  sense,  if  made  in 
reference  to  the  date  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


33.  Take  ye  lieed,  watcli  and  pray ;  for  ye  know  not 
when  the  time  is. 

But  what  should  be  the  practical  effect  of  this  uncertainty  ?  Not 
recklessness,  but  watchfulness.  Tal^e  lieed^  look  (out),  see  (to  it),  be 
upon  your  guard,  the  same  expression  as  in  v.  23.  Watch,  in  both 
languages  originally  means  to  be  awake,  not  to  sleep,  but  with  the 
accessory  notion,  which  has  now  become  the  principal,  of  being  on 
one's  guard  or  looking  out  for  danger.  Pray,  implying,  as  in  v.  18, 
that  neither  watchfulness  nor  caution  is  sufficient  to  avert  the  danger 
here  in  question  without  a  special  divine  interi)Osition,  and  that  this 
can  only  be  obtained  by  asking.  So  far  from  the  use  of  these  means 
being  superseded  by  their  ignorance  of  the  time  fixed  for  the  events, 
this  ignorance  is  given  as  the  very  reason  why  they  ought  to  use  them. 
Watch  and  ijray,  hecause  ye  hiow  not  when  the  time  id. 


3G6  MARK  13,  84.  35. 


31.  (For  the  Son  of  Man  is)  as  a  man  taking  a  far 
journey,  who  left  his  house,  and  gave  authority  to  his  ser- 
vants, and  to  every  man  his  work,  and  commanded  the 
porter  to  watch. 

This  is  not  a  formal  parable,  as  the  words  supplied  in  the  Geneva 
Bible  and  retained  in  our  translation  seem  to  indicate,  but  merely  a 
comparison  occurring  as  it  were  at  the  moment,  and  immediately  sug- 
gested to  the  reader,  by  an  as  or  as  if,  '  Ye  know  not  when  the  time 
is,  as  if  (or  an}' more  than  if)  a  man  &c.'      Taking  a  far  jour?iei/, 
is  a  single  word  in  Greek,  and  that  an  adjective  derived  from  (or  akin 
to)  the  verb  used  above  in  12,  1,  and  there  explained.      The  former 
stricth^  means  away  from  liome.  qv  rf\AX\^\  from  oneh  iieople,  and  denotes 
therefore  not  mere  absence  from  one's  house  or  family  but  from  his 
country.     Beyond  this,  neither  distance  nor  the  act  of  journeying  is 
necessarily  suggested  by  the  Greek  word  which,  as  here   combined 
with  man.,  approaches  very  nearly  to  the  English  ahsentee^  especially 
as  used  in  Ireland,  to  denote  proprietors  who  do  not  live  upon  their 
lands  nor  even  in  the   country,  but  beyond  the  channel  or  in  foreign 
parts.      Who  left  is  too  historical  a  form,  leading  the  reader  to  expect  a 
formal  narrative,  instead  of  a  mere  passing  reference.    The  Greek  word 
is  a  particii^le,  leaving  (or  Imving  left)  his  house,  giving  (^ov  having  giv- 
en)  to  his  servants,  i.  e.  at  the  time  of  his  departure,  the  authority 
(or  delegated  poicer)  to  conduct  his  household  and  to  manage  his  affairs 
while  absent.     And  to  each  his  oicn  wor^,  so  that  the  authority  with 
which  they  were  collectively  entrusted  was  not  to  exempt  them  indi- 
vidually from  the  necessity  of  work  or  labour.      And  to  the  j^orter  or 
doorkeeper  he  entrusted  a  peculiar  charge,  that  he  should  icatch^  both 
keep  awake  and  guard  the  house,  as  well  as  be  in  readiness  to  readmit 
his  master  should  he  unexpectedly  return ;  for  this  idea,  although  not 
expressed,  is  necessarily  suggested  by  the  previous  context,  and  implied 
in  our  Saviour's  application  of  the  case  supposed  to  that  of  his  disci- 
ples in  the  next  verse.      The  verb  translated  icatch  is  not  the  one  so 
rendered  in  the  verse  preceding  and  familiarly  emploj'ed  in  Attic  i^rose 
by  Xenophon  and  Plato,  but  a  later  Greek  or  Hellenistic  s^'nonjnne, 
derived    from   a   secondary  sense  of  another  Attic    verb.     The  onlj^ 
difference,  if  any.  in  their  primar}^  signification,  is  that  the  one  here 
used  means  strictly  to  awake,  and  the  other  to  be  sleepless  or  to  lie 
awake.     As  here  used  they  are  perfectly  synonymous. 

35.  Watch  ye  tlierefore  ;  for  ye  know  not  when  the 
master  of  the  house  cometh,  at  even,  or  at  midnight,  or  at 
the  cock-crowing,  or  in  the  morning. 

Watch  ye  therefore^  do  as  that  servant  was  required  by  his  master, 
and  for  the  same  reason,  that  the  master  may  himself  return  when  not 
expected.  This  transition  from  the  parable  or  illustration  to  the  case 
in  hand  is  very  beautiful  though  very  simple,  and  is  rendered  still  more 


MARK  13,  35.  36.  367 


striking  by  our  Lord's  addressing  his  disciples  just  as  if  they  were  do- 
mestics left  in  charge  of  their  master's  property  and  dwelling.  Ho 
does  not  say,  'for  you  are  like  those  servants  in  not  knowing,'  but  with- 
out emplo3ang  any  term  of  likeness  or  comparison,  he  says  to  them  di- 
rectly, for  ye  hnow  not  iclien  the  master  of  the  lionse  cometh^  thus 
transporting  them  at  once  into  the  ideal  situation  which  he  had  been 
just  describing.  There  is  something  in  the  turn  thus  given  to  the  con- 
versation as  pleasing  to  the  taste  as  it  is  helpful  to  the  understanding. 
The  last  clause  is,  if  possible,  more  exquisite  and  admirable  still ;  for 
with  inimitable  ease  and  grace,  it  carries  out  the  imaginary  case  in  its 
details,  without  a  formal  application,  which  could  not  be  needed  even 
by  the  dullest  or  most  careless  reader.  The  divisions  of  the  night 
here  mentioned  are  commonly  supposed  to  be  the  four  military  watches 
which  had  superseded  the  three  ancient  ones  at  the  Roman  conquest. 
See  above,  on  G,  48,  where  this  division  is  implied ;  but  here  the 
watches  are  distinctly  enumerated,  no  doubt  by  their  proper  and 
customary  names.  At  even,  a  Greek  adverb,  strictly  meaning  late,  a 
relative  expression  sometimes  meaning  late  in  life,  but  commonly  late  in 
the  day,  or  towards  its  close,  at  evening,  and  in  reference  to  night,  the 
early  portion  as  distinguished  from  the  three  that  follow.  Midnight  ex- 
plains itself,  and  has  its  synonymes  in  every  language.  CocTc-croic,  a 
compound  used  in  iEsop's  fables,  and  in  this  enumeration  designating 
the  three  hours  after  midnight.  In  the  morning,  literally,  early,  the 
exact  correlative  of  late,  the  first  of  the  four  terms  here  used,  and  tech- 
nically signifying  the  three  hours  before  sunrise.  After  all,  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  this  division  is  not  rather  popular  than  technical,  ru- 
ral than  military,  and  whether  this  view  of  the  language  does  not  en- 
hance its  poetical  or  graphic  beauty.  It  is  needless  to  observe  how  much 
is  added  to  the  point  and  force  of  the  whole  sentence,  by  distinctly 
naming  the  divisions  of  the  night,  instead  of  saying  as  lie  might  have 
done,  without  a  difference  of  essential  meaning,  '  at  whatever  time  of 
night  he  may  arrive.' 

36.  Lest  coming  siiddenlj  he  find  joii  sleeping. 

This  is  the  conclusion  of  the  charge  in  the  first  clause  of  the  preced- 
ing verse,  the  residue  of  that  verso  forming  a  parenthesis,  in  which  the 
reason  is  assigned  for  watching,  namely,  that  they  knew  not  when  their 
master  would  return.  That  reason  is  in  fact,  though  not  in  form,  here 
carried  out  by  showing  why  their  ignorance  should  make  them  watch- 
ful. Lest  (for  fear  that)  coming  suddenly  (without  immediate  warning 
or  affording  time  for  preparation)  he  find  yoa  sleeping,  and  thereby  neg- 
lecting his  express  command  as  well  as  treating  him  with  insolent  in- 
difierence.  The  assumption  here  that  they  were  bound  to  watch  or  sit 
up  for  their  master,  which  is  not  the  ordinar}^  duty  of  all  servants, 
seems  to  show  that  he  considers  his  apostles  as  doorkeepers  or  porters, 
whose  charge  it  was  to  watch  in  this  way,  and  of  whom  he  made  speci- 
fic mention  in  the  close  of  v.  34.  As  if  he  had  said,  'you  will  soon  be 
like  servants  left  at  home  by  their  master,  and  especially  like  porters 


368  MARK  13,  36.  37. 

left  to  gufird  the  door  and  watch  for  his  return.'  The  fitness  and  pro- 
priety of  this  particular  comparison,  besides  the  general  one  to  servants, 
is  another  delicate  but  admirable  stroke  in  this  inimitable  picture. 

37.  And  what  I  say  unto  yon,  I  say  imto  all,  Watch. 

Had  our  Lord's  discourse  ended  with  the  preceding  verse,  it  would 
have  been  a  charge  to  the  apostles,  as  such,  or  at  most  to  rulers  in  the 
church,  so  far  as  they  resemble  or  succeed  them  in  official  functions. 
But  Avith  gracious  wisdom,  and  at  the  same  time  with  a  heavenly  art 
transcending  all  rhetorical  contrivances,  he  at  the  very  close,  and  in  a 
sentence  of  unusual  brevity,  at  once  extends  the  exhortation  to  inces- 
sant watchfulness,  as  founded  on  the  utter  uncertainty  of  those  great 
changes,  and  especially  the  greatest  of  all  which  he  had  predicted,  to 
his  followers  in  general,  not  only  to  those  then  alive,  in  view  of  the  de- 
struction just  impending  over  Israel,  but  also,  by  parity  of  reasoning 
and  necessary  consequence,  to  all  believers  who  should  live  before  the 
final  consummation.  What  [things)  to  you  I  say  to  all  I  say,  then 
summing  all  up  in  one  single  word,  the  burden  and  the  moral  of  this 
whole  discourse,  Awal-e  (or  icatchl)  However  the  disciples  may  have 
been  affected  and  impressed  by  this  concluding  apologue  and  warning, 
it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  they  could  either  understand  or  feel  it  at 
the  time  of  its  deliver}'',  as  they  did  not  long  after,  when  they  found 
themselves  indeed  forsaken  by  their  master,  and  entrusted  with  the 
care  of  liis  house  and  household  till  he  came  again. 


•  «  •- 


CIIAPTEE  XIV. 

Having  wound  up  the  history  of  our  Lord's  prophetic  ministry,  the 
evangelist  now  enters  upon  that  of  his  sacerdotal  work,  beginning 
with  the  final  resolution  of  the  theocratic  rulers  to  destroy  him  (1-2), 
but  then  pausing  to  record  a  touching  incident  which  took  place  during 
his  abode  at  Bethany,  his  unction  by  a  woman,  as  a  sort  of  prepara- 
tion for  his  burial  (3-9),  and  at  the  same  time  bringing  to  maturity  the 
treacherous  design  which  had  already  been  conceived  by  one  of  his 
apostles  (10-11.)  Then  follows  an  account  of  the  arrangements  made 
for  his  last  passover  (12-10)  and  of  its  actual  celebration,  during 
which  he  announces  his  betrayal  by  one  of  their  own  number  (17-21), 
and  after  which  he  institutes  the  Christian  Passover  or  Lord's  Supper 
(22-25.)  At  the  close  of  this  remarkable  service,  he  withdraws  from 
the  city  to  the  mount  of  Olives,  b}''  the  way  anncnincing  to  the  twelve 
that  they  were  about  to  be  dissolved  and  scattered  until  he  should  re- 
assemble them  in  Galilee  after  his  resurrection  (26-28).  with  a  particu- 
lar prediction  to  Peter  of  his  own  approaching  fall  (29-31.)  Then 
comes  the  prelude  to  his  final  passion,  tlie   mysterious  conflict  in  the 


MARK  14,  1.  369 


garden  of  Gethsemaiie  (32-42),  immediately  followed  by  his  seizure 
and  the  flight  of  his  disciples,  the  particulars  of  which  appalling  scene 
are  stated  brietly  but  with  graphic  vividness  (43-52.)  The  next  scene 
exhibits  his  arraignment  in  the  presence  of  the  High  Priest  and  the 
Sanhedrim,  the  false  charge  and  testimony  brought  against  him.  his 
refusal  to  defend  himself  or  answer  any  of  their  allegations,  till  at 
length  he  has  an  opportunity,  not  only  of  declaring  but  of  solemnly 
swearing,  that  he  is  the  true  Messiah,  whereupon  he  is  condemned  to 
death  for  blasphemy,  and  in  the  meantime  given  up  as  a  convict  to  de- 
rision and  maltreatment  (53-65.)  During  these  proceedings  his  pre- 
diction with  respect  to  Peter's  fall  had  been  literally  verified  by  three 
distinct  denials  of  his  master,  under  circumstances  of  peculiar  aggra- 
vation, a  humiliating  but  exact  account  of  which  concludes  the  chap- 
ter (66—72.)  Although  the  division  of  the  chapters  here  is  disproiDor- 
tionate  and  inconvenient,  it  could  hardly  have  been  made  otherwise 
without  a  still  more  undesirable  disruption  of  the  narrative,  in  which 
no  pause  occurs  between  the  incident  at  Bethany  and  the  transfer  ot 
our  Saviour  from  the  bar  of  Caiaphas  to  that  of  Pilate.  In  examining 
the  details  of  this  most  interesting  and  important  passage,  it  will  be 
even  more  than  usually  proper  and  expedient  to  make  use  of  the  par- 
allel accounts  only  for  the  purpose  of  defence  or  illustration,  leaving 
Mark  to  tell  his  story  in  his  own  way,  both  as  to  the  choice  and  the 
arrangement  of  his  facts  and  his  peculiar  method  of  expression,  all 
which  are  essential  to  the  oneness  and  the  definite  effect  of  the  whole 
narrative. 

1.  After  two  days  was  (the  feast  of)  the  passover,  and 
of  mdeavened  bread  ;  and  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes 
sought  how  they  might  take  him  by  craft  and  put  (him) 
to  death. 

After  two  days  does  not  mean  that  the  passover  was  two  days  after 
the  discourse  in  the  preceding  chapter,  though  it  maj^  have  been  so, 
but  that  two  days  before  the  passover  Jesus  took  the  preparatory  steps 
here  mentioned.  The  word  translated  'passover  (pascha)  is  the  Ara- 
maic form  (}<lr;02)  of  the  original  Hebrew  term  (h&2),  applied  in 
the  law  of  Moses  to  the  annual  solemnity  observed  in  commemoration 
of  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  so  called  because  the  destroying  angel 
passed  by  or  over  (hSs)  the  houses  of  the  Israelites  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  first-born.  It  was  first  celebrated  in  the  very  night  of  the 
departure  out  of  Egypt,  and  thenceforth  annually  (with  a  few  inter- 
ruptions) until  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus.  It  was  the 
oldest  and  in  some  respects  the  most  important  of  the  observances  in- 
troduced by  Moses,  and  is  therefore  often  called  the  feast  (or  festitaV) 
by  way  of  eminence.  It  was  at  once  sacrificial  and  domestic,  the  es- 
sential rite  consisting  in  the  slaughter  of  a  lamb  at  the  sanctuary  and 
its  subsequent  consumption,  not  by  fire  on  the  altar,  but  as  food  by 
the  household  of  the  ofierer.  The  original  institution  of  this  service 
is  recorded  in  Ex.  12,  1-16,  and  afterwards  embodied  in  the  jMosaic 
16- 


370  MARK  H  1- 

legislation  (Lev.  23,  5.  Num.  9,  1-3.)  To  make  the  rite  more  truly 
commemorative,  it  was  anciently  observed  precisely  as  at  first,  in  a 
standing  postui-e  and  with  ever}^  preparation  for  an  immediate  journey. 
This  exact  imitation  of  the  outward  circumstance  seems  to  have  been 
gradually  discontinued,  with  the  exception  of  the  bitter  herbs  and  the 
unleavened  bread,  although  the  essence  of  the  rite  remained  unaltered. 
Besides  its  primary  commemorative  purpose,  it  was  connected,  in  the 
ceremonial  calendar,  with  the  commencement  of  the  harvest,  and  as  a 
prophetic  symbol  tj^pified  the  great  deliverer  who  was  to  come,  "the 
Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  "  (John  1,  29. 
1  Cor.  5,  7.)  From  it  the  Jewish  year  was  reckoned  (Ex.  12,  2),  and 
by  it  the  chronology  of  Christ's  public  ministry  is  marked  and  meas- 
ured in  the  gospel  of  John  (2, 13.  23.  4, 45.  5,  1.  G,  4.  11, 55.)  The  pas- 
chal lamb  was  selected  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  first  month  (Nisan), 
and  slaughtered  on  the  fourteenth  in  the  evening,  or  as  the  Hebrew 
phrase  (Ex.  12,  0)  literally  means,  ietioeen  the  evenings^  i.  e.  according 
to  the  Karaites  and  Samaritans,  between  sunset  and  dark;  but  accord- 
ing to  the  prevalent  practice  and  tradition,  the  first  evening  began  with 
the  declining  and  the  second  with  the  setting  sun,  A  similar  distinc- 
tion between  an  earlier  and  later  evening  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus, 
and  ma}^  be  still  traced  in  the  diverse  use  of  the  word  evening^  as  de- 
noting the  afternoon  or  the  beginning  of  the  night,  in  different  parts 
of  our  own  countrv.  The  later  traditions  of  the  Jews,  collected  in 
the  Talmud  and  the  writings  of  Maimonides  and  other  rabbins,  describe 
a  very  complicated  paschal  ritual,  including  the  distribution  of  five 
successive  cujjs  of  wine,  the  singing  of  a  series  of  psalms  which  they 
called  the  Great  Hallel,  and  various  liturgical  formulas  of  benediction 
and  thanksoivino;.  Whether  the  service  was  conducted  in  this  form  at 
the  time  of  Christ  is  altogether  doubtful ;  but  even  granting  that  it 
was,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  our  Lord  would  put  the  traditional 
additions  on  the  same  footing  with  the  paschal  rite  itself.  Besides  the 
passover,  properly  so  called,  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month, 
there  was  a  festival  of  seven  days,  extending  to  the  evening  of  the 
twenty-first,  during  which  unleavened  bread  was  eaten,  as  it  was  at 
the  paschal  meal  itself,  in  commemoration  of  the  haste  with  which 
Israel  went  out  of  Egy[)t  with  their  dough  yet  unleavened  in  their 
kneading- troughs,  but  at  the  same  time  with  a  typical  allusion  to  the 
fermentation  of  yeast  or  leaven  as  an  incipient  corruj^tion  and  as  such 
an  emblem  of  moral  depravation,  for  which  symbolical  reason  leaven 
was  excluded  from  ail  oiferings  by  the  law  of  Moses,  just  as  salt  was 
required  in  all  animal  oblations  on  account  of  its  conservative  and 
antiseptic  virtue  (see  above,  on  9,  49.)  The  whole  of  this  festival  is 
here  meant  b}'  the  ^^asHover  and  the  unleavened  [bread,  or  strictly, 
things,  the  adjective  in  Greek  being  of  the  plural  number  and  the 
neuter  gender.)  Coincident  with  this  great  annual  observance  was 
the  final  i-esolution  of  the  ecclesiastical  and  national  authorities  (here 
as  often  elsewhere  represented  l)}^  tlte  cltuf  jn'icstH  and,  scrtbeii)  to  de- 
stroy the  life  of  Jesus,  not  by  open  violence,  but  as  they  still  hoped, 
by  deceit  or  craft,  a  significant  Greek  word  which  originally  means  a 


MARK  14,  1.  2.  3.  371 


bait  for  fish,  but  in  its  secondary  usage  any  means  of  enticing  even 
human  prey.  The  immediate  object  of  the  fraud  or  trick  was  to 
secure  his  person,  but  their  ultimate  design  to  kill  him.  Sought  lioio 
(as  in  11,  18),  considered  and  inquired  by  what  means  their  end  might 
be  attained,  an  expression  which  perhaps  implies  that  they  had  not 
yet  satisfied  themselves  on  this  point,  or  projected  any  definite  design. 

2.  But  tliey  said,  Not  on  the  feast  (day),  lest  there 

be  an  uproar  of  the  people. 

They  said,  not  once  for  all,  or  on  any  one  occasion,  but  as  the  im- 
perfect tense  implies,  from  time  to  time,  during  their  consultations  on 
the  subject.  On  the  feast  day  should  be  in  the  feast  (or  festivaV),  as 
the  concourse  which  gave  rise  to  their  fears  was  not  confined  to  the 
day  of  the  passover  strictly  so  called,  but  continued  through  the  whole 
week  following  or  the  days  of  unlearned  hread.  Lest,  or  lest  at  some 
time  during  the  term  specified,  the  Greek  word  being  not  the  simple 
negative  {p-rj),  but  a  form  compounded  with  an  indefinite  particle  of 
time  (^iJ.r]7roTe.)  Tliere  ie,  literally,  shall  te,  a  form  of  speech  implying 
more  distinctly  than  the  subjunctive,  the  probability  of  such  an  issue. 
Uproar,  a  good  translation  of  the  Greek  word  which  properly  means 
noise  or  audible  disturbance  (see  above,  on  5,  38),  and  is  only  seconda- 
rily applied  to  tumult  or  popular  disorder  in  general.  Of  the  people, 
as  a  mass  or  aggregate  (\aov)  but  not  an  organized  body  (^drj^xov.) 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  people  present  at  Jerusalem  are  spoken  of  as 
representing  the  whole  race  of  Israel,  which  is  the  less  surprising  as 
the  population  at  this  season  was  not  only  swelled  to  an  enormous 
size,  but  composed  of  Jews  and  proselytes  of  "  every  nation  under 
heaven  "  (Acts  2,  5.)  Thus  far  the  plans  of  the  rulers  for  our  Lord's 
destruction  seem  to  have  been  merely  negative,  and  so  continued  till 
a  new  turn  was  given  to  their  whole  proceedings  by  the  overtures  of 
Judas  (see  below,  on  v.  10.) 

3.  And  being  in  Bethany,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the 
leper,  as  he  sat  at  meat,  there  came  a  woman  having  an 
alabaster-box  of  ointment  of  spikenard,  very  precious ; 
and  she  brake  the  box,  and  poured  (it)  on  his  head. 

Before  proceeding  to  describe  this  change  of  plan,  and  the  nego- 
ciation  which  occasioned  it,  iMark  pauses  to  relate  an  incident  connected 
with  it  in  more  ways  than  one.  as  well  as  \ery  striking  and  affecting  in 
itself.  Being  in  BetJiany,  i.  e.  while  he  was  at  Bethany  during  his  last 
visit  to  Jerusalem.  (See  above,  on  11, 11.)  Nothing  can  be  more  natu- 
ral and  easy  than  the  introduction  of  this  incident  at  this  point,  both 
by  Mark  and  Matthew  (26,  G),  the  attempt  to  represent  it  as  at  vari- 
ance with  the  chronology  of  John  (12,  1)  being  altogether  groundless, 
as  the  six  days  there  relate  to  his  arrival  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  tico  days  here  to  his  preparation  for  the  paschal  ser- 
vice.    Equally  groundless  is  the  notion,  entertained  by  some,  that  the 


372  MARK  14,  3. 


passages  describe  two  different  anointings,  a  coincidence  not  only  most 
improbable,  but  here  assumed  without  the  least  necessity.  Simon  the 
lejier,  i.  e.  who  had  formerly  been  so  afflicted,  not  at  this  time,  which 
would  have  excluded  him  from  society  (see  above,  on  1,  40),  unless  we 
assume  that  he  was  absent  upon  this  occasion.  The  definite  descrip- 
tion of  him  as  the  lejier  implies  that  he  was  generally  well  known,  per- 
haps as  one  whom  Christ  had  healed.  That  he  was  a  relative  or  inti- 
mate friend  of  Lazarus,  though  not  at  all  improbable,  is  not  a  necessary 
supposition  to  conciliate  this  narrative  with  John's,  who  mentions 
Lazarus  as  present  at  the  entertainment  and  INIartha  as  attending  on  the 
guests,  neither  of  which  statements  necessarily  implies  that  it  was  in 
their  own  house.  A  icoman,  i.  e.  i\Iary  the  sister  of  Lazarus  and 
Martha  (John  12,  3),  the  same  difference  between  the  sisters  being 
here  observable  as  in  the  incident  preserved  b}'-  Luke  (10,  38-41.) 
Alabaster  (box  is  not  expressed  in  the  original),  a  term  properly  denot- 
ing a  variety  of  gypsum,  white  and  semi-transparent,  and  susceptible  of 
being  wrought  into  delicate  and  ornamental  shapes,  such  as  vases  and 
vials,  particularly  spoken  of  by  Pliny  as  the  best  receptacles  for  un- 
guents, or  the  fragrant  oils  regarded  by  the  ancients  as  among  the  most 
costly  and  delightful  luxuries.  From  the  frequent  use  of  alabaster  for 
this  purpose  it  acquired  the  wider  sense  of  any  such  receptacle,  so 
that  Theocritus  speaks  of  "  golden  alabasters."  There  is  no  need  how- 
ever of  departing  from  the  strict  sense  in  the  case  before  us,  as  the  whole 
impression  made  by  the  description  is  that  of  a  refined  and  exquisite  as 
well  as  rare  and  costly  sacrifice.  0/"  (that  is, /?^??  ()/^  or  containing) 
spH:enard,  which  appears  to  be  intended  as  a  version  of  two  distinct 
Greek  words,  the  first  a  noun  (nard)  denoting  an  oriental  gum  or  exu- 
dation, highly  valued  by  the  ancients,  and  the  other  an  adjective 
(niaTLKrjs)  which  has  been  variously  understood,  as  denoting  the  place 
from  which  the  unguent  was  procured  (Pista).  but  of  which  we  have 
no  other  information  ;  or  as  derived  from  the  verb  (ttlvco)  to  drink,  and 
meaning  liquid,  potable,  an  explanation  coinciding  remarkably  with  a 
statement  in  Athennsus  as  to  drinkable  unguents,  among  which  nard  is 
particularly  mentioned.  But  most  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern, 
adhere  to  the  onl}"  sense  of  the  Greek  word  justified  by  usage,  which 
connects  it  with  the  well  known  words  for  faith  (niaTts)  and  faithful 
(TnaT(')s).  and  makes  it  here  mean  true  or  genuine^  as  opposed  to  coun- 
terfeits and  adulterations.  Very  j^^^dous,  i.  e.  in  the  old  and  strict 
sense  of  the  English  word,  of  great  price,  costly,  dear,  expensive.  And 
brealing^  literallj'-,  breaking  together,  i.  e.  crushing  by  compression, 
which  was  probabl}-  a  part  of  the  luxurious  custom,  and  perhaps  one 
reason  for  the  use  of  alabaster,  as  a  compact  but  compressible  material. 
The  box,  in  Greek,  the  alabaster,  as  before,  box  being  not  only  not  in  the 
original,  but  probabl}^  conveying  an  erroneous  notion  of  the  shape, 
which  is  much  more  likely  to  have  been  that  of  a  close-mouthed  vase 
or  long-necked  phial.  Pound  (it)doicn  vponliim,doicn  upon  the  head, 
the  last  words  being  added  as  a  specification  of  the  first,  and  the  down- 
ward motion  twice  expressed  (though  not  at  all  in  the  translation)  by 
the  repetition  of  a  prepositioii  (kutu)  having  that  sense  in  connection 


MARK  14,  3.  4.  5.  373 

both  with  verbs  and  nouns.  (For  examples  of  this  usage,  seel,  10.  30.  4, 
4.  5,13.  10,42.  11,15.  12,40.  13,2.)  The  remarkable  emphasis  thus 
put  upon  the  downward  motion,  though  a  matter  of  course,  apparently 
requiring  no  particular  mention,  may  be  intended  to  suggest  that  the 
fragrant  affusion  ran  down  upon  the  person  of  the  Saviour  even  to  his 
feet,  thus  reconciling  one  of  the  alleged  discrej)ancies  between  John's 
narrative  and  that  before  us. 

4.  And  there  were  some  tliat  had  indignation  within 
themselves,  and  said,  Why  was  this  waste  of  the  ointment 
made  ? 

We  have  here  a  fine  example  of  the  way  in  which  independent  but 
concurrent  witnesses  complete  each  other's  statements,  a  phenomenon 
familiar  to  the  plainest  men  among  ourselves  who  ever  sat  upon  a  jury, 
or  even  attended  a  trial,  though  pronounced  by  German  wisdom  an  ir- 
reconcileable  discrepancy.  There  were  some,  says  Mark ;  the  discijyles, 
says  Matthew  (26,  8)  ;  one  of  his  discijjles,  Judas  Iscariot,  says  John 
(12,  4)  ;  all  perfectly  consistent  and  completely  harmonized  by  simply 
supposing,  that  what  Judas  suggested  was  inconsiderately  caught  up 
and  repeated  b}'  the  rest,  a  fact  of  every-day  occurrence  in  our  popular 
assemblies.  Mad  indignation,  grieving  and  complaining,  a  verb  ex- 
pressive both  of  sorrow  and  resentment  or  disapprobation  (see  above, 
on  10, 14.  41.)  Within  (or  more  exactly  to)  thejnseUes,  perhaps  with 
the  accessory  idea,  to  each  otlier  (see  above,  on  2,  8.  9,  33.  10.  20.  11, 
31.  12, 7.)  And  sajn'ng,  to  what  (end),  or  for  ichat  (^reason),  has  tMs  loss 
(waste  or  destruction)  of  the  ointment  hai^jpened  (como  to  pass  or  taken 
place),  a  milder  or  more  indirect  reproach  than  that  expressed  in  our 
version. 

5.  For  it  might  have  been  sold  for  more  than  three 
hundred  pence,  and  have  been  given  to  the  poor.  And 
they  mnrmiired  against  her. 

The  ground  of  the  objection  is  distinctly  stated,  not  that  the  use  of 
such  things  was  luxurious  and  therefore  sinful,  but  that  the  money 
which  it  cost  might  have  been  better  spent  in  the  relief  of  suffering. 
In  itself  considered,  this  is  a  most  plausible  objection,  and  was  no  doubt 
honestly  expressed  by  some  or  all  of  the  disciples,  except  Judas  v\'ho 
first  broached  it,  and  whose  avarice  repined  that  she  had  not  contrib- 
uted the  same  amount  in  money,  so  as  to  be  under  his  control  and  prob- 
ably at  his  disposal  (John  12,  6.)  Might  (or  could)  have  l)een  sold,  a 
Greek  verb  originall}^  meaning  export  trade  or  traffic  beyond  seas,  but 
then  genericall}'  used  of  any  sale  whatever.  More  than^  litcrall}'-  aljove 
or  ofcer,  a  coincidence  between  the  Greek  and  English  idiom.  Pence, 
denarii,  the  Roman  silver  coin  before  referred  to  (in  G,  37,  12, 15)  and 
there  explained.  The  sum  here  mentioned  is  from  forty-five  to  fifty  dol- 
lars of  our  luoney,  and  agrees  almost  exactly  with  tlie  price  of  the  most 


374  MARK  14,  6.  7.  8. 

costly  nard  as  stated  by  Pliny.     Murmured,  or  expressed  their  dissat- 
isfaction, not  only  at  but  to  lier, 

6.  And  Jesus  said.  Let  her  alone  ;  wliy  trouble  ye  her  ? 
she  hath  wrought  a  good  work  on  me. 

Let  lier  alone,  leave  her,  suffer  her  to  do  what  she  is  doing  (compare 
the  use  of  the  same  verb  in  7,  27.  10, 14.  11,6.)  Troxible,  literally, 
give  (or  afford)  laJ)Ours,  cares,  vexations,  an  idiom  also  found  in  Attic 
prose.  A  good  icorh,  not  merely  no  offence  or  folly,  but  a  positively 
good  work,  she  has  tcrovght,  the  genuine  past  tense  of  the  English 
verb  to  icorh  (now  nearly  superseded  by  the  so-called  regular  form 
worl-ed)  and  therefore  exactly  corresponding  to  the  noun,  as  in  the 
original.  Oil  me,  literally,  in  me,  a  preposition  of  more  various  and 
frequent  use  in  Greek  than  English,  here  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  closer 
contact  and  more  intimate  effect  or  operation  than  the  other  particle. 
This  is  a  memorable  and  instructive  instance  of  our  Lord's  rejecting  an 
ostensible  morality  as  spurious  or  ill-timed,  and  approving  wliat  would 
still  be  condemned  by  many  sincere  Christians  as  a  sinful  or  at  least  an 
irrational  extravagance.  But  let  it  be  carefully  observed  in  what  sense 
and  on  what  grounds  he  pronounced  this  paradoxical  decision. 

7.  For  ye  have  the  poor  with  you  always,  and  when- 
soever ye  will  ye  may  do  them  good  :  but  me  ye  have 
not  always. 

What  justified  this  seeming  misappropriation  of  so  large  a  sum  was 
the  extraordinary  occasion  and  the  secret  motive.  To  relieve  the 
wants  of  mnjij  is  intrinsically  better  than  to  anoint  the  head  or  feet 
of  one.  But  if  that  one  is  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  about  to  suffer  for 
the  sins  of  men ;  if  the  same  opportunity  of  testifying  love  to  him  will 
never  be  repeated  ;  and  if  that  love  can  be  emphaticallj^  testified  by 
unction,  or  by  any  other  costly  outward  application ;  it  would  be  right 
to  make  it,  even  if  the  poor  must  lose  or  suffer  so  much  for  it.  How 
much  more  when  such  loss  is  entirely  unnecessary,  and  may  be  pre- 
vented or  made  good  by  greater  benefactions  upon  other  occasions, 
which  can  never  be  wanting,  for  the  poor  shall  not  cease  out  of  the 
land  (Deut.  15. 11.)  To  the  popish  argument  (from  these  words)  in 
favour  of  a  showy  and  expensive  worship,  Calvin  ingeniously  and 
forcibly  replies,  that  by  applauding  such  an  act  as  only  practicable 
once,  our  Lord  implicitly  forbids  its  repetition  and  condemns  its  habit- 
ual imitation,  just  as  he  would  no  doubt  have  rebuked  this  very  wo- 
man for  the  same  proceeding,  if  adopted  as  an  ordinary  token  of 
affection. 

8.  She  hath  done  what  she  could ;  she  is  come  afore- 
liand  to  anoint  my  body  to  the  burying. 

WJiat  she  had  she  did,  i.  e.  according  to  her  means  mid  opportuni- 


MARK  14,  8.  9.  10.  375 

ties,  she  showed  her  willingness  to  sacrifice  her  own  enjoyment  and 
possessions  to  the  honour  of  her  Saviour.  She  is  come  (or  she  under- 
tooJS)  heforehancl  to  anoint  my  liody  for  the  'burial,  a  Greek  word  not 
denoting  actual  interment,  but  the  whole  preparation  of  the  body  for  the 
tomb  by  ablution,  shrouding  and  (among  the  Jews)  anointing  and  per- 
fuming (compare  John  19,  40.)  All  abuse  of  this  example,  as  a  pre- 
text for  substituting  such  attentions  to  the  Saviour  in  the  place  of  faith 
and  love  and  general  obedience,  is  precluded  by  the  obvious  considera- 
tion, that  in  this  case  his  omniscience  recognized  the  outward  act  as 
merely  the  spontaneous  expression  of  those  inward  dispositions, 
without  which  it  would  have  been  in  JNIary's  case,  and  has  been  in  the 
case  of  thousands,  a  mere  superstitious  mockery. 

9.  Yerilj,  I  say  unto  yon,  Wheresoever  tin's  gospel 
shall  be  preached  throaodiout  the  whole  world,  (this) 
also  that  she  hath  done  shall  be  spoken  of,  for  a  memorial 
of  her. 

That  jNIar}^  had  indeed  chosen  the  good  part  which  could  not  be 
taken  from  her  (Luke  10,  42),  either  by  the  hypocrisy  and  avarice  of 
Judas  or  the  utilitarian  parsimony  of  his  brethren,  is  now  evinced  by 
one  of  the  most  gloiious  distinctions  ever  conferred  upon  a  mortal,  a 
distinction  which  instead  of  fading  with  the  lapse  of  time  growls  daily 
brighter,  and  to  which,  as  one  has  well  said,  even  unfriendly  critics  and 
interpreters  contribute,  as  it  were,  against  their  will  and  in  the  very  act 
of  doubt  or  censure.  Verily  (in  the  original,  amen)  /  say  to  yon,  the 
formula  of  solemn  affirmation  wdiich  we  have  already  met  with  so  re- 
peatedly (see  above,  on  3,28.  6,11.  8,  12.  9,  1.  41.  10,15.  29.  11,23. 
12,43.  13,30.)  Wherever  this  gosiJcL  not  i\\Q  v^v'iiiQw  one  before  us, 
as  some  foolishly  imagine  and  others  maliciously  pretend,  but  the  his- 
tory or  new^s  of  these  events,  or  my  whole  history  on  earth,  now 
drawMng  to  a  close.  Shall  he  (is,  or  may  be)  preached  (heralded,  pro- 
claimed) throughout  (literally  into)  the  lohole  icorld,  also  (i.  e.  in  addi- 
tion to  my  history,  or  rather  as  a  part  of  it,  inseparable  from  it)  ichat 
she  did  (just  now^  in  anointing  me,  and  you  found  fault  with)  shall  he 
told  (or  talhed  of)  for  a  memorial  of  her,  something  by  which  she 
shall  be  held  in  everlasting  remembrance,  thus  perpetuating  her  praise 
and  the  malicious  or  mistaken  judgment  passed  upon  her. 

10.  And  Jndas  Iscariot,  one  of  the  twelve,  went  nnto 
the  chief  priests,  to  betray  him  nnto  them. 

From  Mark's  narrative  alone,  there  might  seem  to  be  no  connec- 
tion, except  that  of  chronological  succession,  between  this  and  the 
preceding  incident ;  but  by  combining  the  accounts,  as  any  justice  of 
the  peace  would  ni  the  case  of  four  credible  witnesses,  we  learn  that 
the  reception  which  our  Lord  gave  to  the  sanctimonious  suggestion  of 
Iscariot.  in  relation  to  the  ointment,  was  the  proximate  occasion,  though 


o 


76  MARK  14,  10-11.  12. 


of  course  not  the  primary  cause  of  that  disciple's  treachery  (see  John 
12, 10.  Luke  22,  3.)  Stung  by  the  well-deserved  reproof  of  his  hy- 
pocrisy and  avarice,  he  yielded  to  the  influences  which  had  long  beset 
him,  and  went  away  from  the  hospitable  board  of  Simon  to  the  chief 
priests  (as  rulers  of  the  church  and  nation),  tJiat  he  onigM  'betray  Mm 
to  tliem.  The  Greek  verb  strictly  means  deliver  iip  or  put  into  their 
power ;  but  as  this  could  only  be  effected  by  a  breach  of  trust  and 
violation  of  the  most  intimate  and  tender  ties,  hetray  is  not  too  strong 
a  version. 

11.  And  Avhen  tliey  heard  (it),  tliey  were  glad,  and 
promised  to  give  him  money.  And  he  sought  how  he 
might  conveniently  betray  him. 

And  they  hearing  (his  proposal)  icere  rejoiced  at  this  most  unex- 
pected opportunity  of  compassing  their  ends,  without  the  delay  which 
they  had  concluded  to  be  necessary,  and  yet  without  popular  commo- 
tion, against  which  the  traitor  undertook  to  guard  (Luke  22,  G.)  And 
promised^  in  answer  to  his  own  proposal  (2»Iatt.  2G,  15),  to  give  him 
money^  literally,  silver^  but  generically  used  like  the  corresponding 
French  word  (^argent.)  The  precise  sum  is  preserved  by  Matthew  on 
account  of  its  connection  with  a  signal  prophecy  (Matt.  26, 15.  27, 4. 
9.  10.)  Whether  the  sum  there  mentioned  was  the  full  price  of  his 
treason,  or  only  the  earnest  money,  is  a  question  which  belongs  to  the 
interpretation  of  that  gospel.  Sought  how^  inquired  for  the  necessary 
ways  and  means,  as  in  v.  1.  Conveniently^  opportunely,  at  a  good 
time,  i.  e.  safely  for  himself,  and  so  as  to  secure  his  emploj'ers  from 
the  popular  commotion  which  they  so  much  dreaded. 

12.  And  the  first  day  of  nnleavened  bread,  when  they 
killed  the  passover,  his  disciples  said  nnto  him.  Where 
wilt  thou  that  we  go  and  prepare,  that  thou  mayest  eat 
the  passover  ? 

At  length  arrived  the  first  day  of  unleavened  l)read^  on  tchieh  they 
l-illed  the  p)afiSover  (i.  e.  the  ])aschal  lamb),  an  indefinite  construction 
equivalent  to  the  passive  form,  the  p)assovcr  icas  l-illed,  i.  e.  habitually 
or  according  to  custom  (see  above,  on  v.  1.)  That  the  reference  is  not 
to  what  was  done  by  the  disciples  upon  this  occasion,  is  clear  from  the 
following  inquiry  where  they  should  make  the  necessary  preparation,  of 
which  the  killing  of  the  lamb  was  the  essential  part.  Ilis  disciples 
say  to  him.  Where  wilt  thou  (dost  thou  wish  that)  going  we  pre- 
pare f 

13.  And  he  sendeth  forth  two  of  his  disci])les,  and 
saith  unto  them.  Go  ye  into  tlic  city,  and  there  shall 
meet  yon  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water  ;  follow  him. 


MARK  H  13.  14  377 

Tico  of  his  discijjles,  whose  names  (Peter  and  John)  have  been 
preserved  by  Luke  (22.  8),  though  he  omits  the  question  put  by  the 
disciples,  and  begins  abruptly  with  our  Lord's  command.  Bearing  (or 
carrying)  a  'pitclier^  properly  an  earthen  vessel,  the  Greek  word  de- 
noting not  the  shape  but  the  material,  being  a  kindred  form  to  that 
translated  tiling  (tiles)  in  Luke  5, 19  (see  above,  on  2, 4.)  This  com- 
pletes Matthew's  more  laconic  statement,  that  he  sent  them  to  %n.ch  an 
one^  or  to  a  certain  jJerson,  without  naming  or  describing  him,  whereas 
Mark  and  Luke  (22,  10)  tell  how  they  were  to  find  him.  To  the 
sceptical  interpreters  this  is  of  course  a  contradiction,  or  at  least  a 
wholly  different  tradition.  Others  admit  the  accounts  to  be  consist- 
ent, but  deny  that  there  is  any  thing  described  in  either  but  the  exe- 
cution of  a  pn  vious  agreement  between  Jesus  and  a  friend  or  acquaint- 
ance in  the  city.  But  how  could  the  disciples  reach  this  friend  by 
following  the  first  man  whom  the}^  met  with  a  pitcher  of  water?  To 
suppose  that  this  too  had  been  previously  settled,  is  a  perfectly  gratu- 
itous assumption ;  and  if  not,  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  prophetic 
sign,  like  that  which  Saul  received  from  Samuel  (1  Sam..  10,  1-8),  and 
this  would  imply,  not  a  previous  agreement,  but  a  supernatural  fore- 
sight and  control  of  human  actions. 

14.  And  wlieresover  he  shall  go  in,  say  ye  to  the 
gooclman  of  tlie  house,  The  Master  saith,  Where  is  the 
guest-chamber,  wliere  I  shall  eat  the  j^assover  witli  my 
disciples  ? 

Wherever  he  may  enter  (or  goes  in),  say  to  the  master  of  the  Tioiise, 
in  Greek  a  single  word  meaning  house-owner,  house-master.  Good- 
man is  often  incorrectly  read,  as  if  it  were  the  noun  man  with  an 
epithet  of  praise  before  it  {goodman),  whereas  it  is  an  old  English 
word  for  master,  as  applied  to  a  house-holder,  husband,  or  the  father 
of  a  family.  A  similar  mistake  is  sometimes  made  by  reading  handi- 
uorh  (i.  e.  hand- work),  in  Ps.  19,  1,  as  if  it  were  handy  (i.  e.  skilful) 
icorl\  The  master  (teacher)  saith  is  thought  by  some  to  imply  that 
the  man  was  a  disciple  ;  but  this  is  not  a  necessary  implication,  if  the 
whole  proceeding  was  extraordinary  and  the  result  secured  bj-a  special 
superhuman  influence.  The  same  consideration  will  remove  all  diffi- 
culty as  10  the  long  delay  in  seeking  this  accommodation,  when  the 
throng  of  strangers  was  so  great  and  the  available  room  already  occu- 
pied. Guest-cJiamher  is  in  Greek  a  word  propeily  denoting  a  place  where 
a  traveller  unloads  his  beast,  or  halts  for  the  night ;  then  an  inn  or  place 
of  pul)lic  entertainment ;  then  a  hired  room,  as  here.  Shall  (or  may) 
eat  the  2)assover  with  my  disciples,  who  constituted,  as  it  were,  his 
household,  and  would  therefore  be  expected  to  unite  with  him  in  this 
observance. 

15.  16,  And  he  Avill  shew  yon  a  large  npper  room  fur- 
nished (and)  prepared ;  there  make  ready  for  us.     And 


378  MARK  14,  15-19. 


his  disciples  went  forth,  and  Ctame  into  the  city,  and  found 
as  he  had  said  nnto  them,  and  tliej  made  ready  the  pass- 
over. 

Ux>per  room,  a  Greek  word  meaning  anj'"  room  above  the  ground- 
floor,  or  up-stairs,  where  the  best  apartments  of  an  Oriental  house  are 
usually  found.  Furnished^  hterally,  spread,  i.  e.  supplied  with  tables 
and  couches,  such  as  were  used  at  meals  (see  above,  on  2,  15.)  Pre- 
pared,  not  the  participle  of  the  verb  that  follows,  but  a  cognate  adjec- 
tive answering  to  ready.  There  are  evidently  two  preparations  for  the 
passover  mentioned  in  this  sentence ;  that  of  the  room,  already  made 
by  the  proprietor ;  and  that  of  the  lamb  with  its  accompaniments, 
bread  and  wine  and  bitter  herbs,  which  was  now  to  be  made  by  the 
two  disciples,  and  which  they  did  make  as  recorded  in  v.  16,  where 
we  learn  no  new  fact  but  the  simple  execution  of  the  Saviour's 
orders. 

17.  And  in  the  evening  he  cometh  with  the  twelve. 

In  the  evening^  literally,  evening  liaxing  came  (become,  begun  to 
be),  the  same  construction  that  is  used  above  in  6,  2.  2L  35. 47.  11, 19. 
He  cometli,  into  the  cit}',  to  the  house  and  room  prepared  for  him. 

18.  And  as  tliey  sat  and  did  eat,  Jesus  said,  Yerily  I 

say  unto  you.   One  of  you  which  eateth  with  me  shall 

betray  me. 

And  tliey  reclining  (see  above,  on  2,  15)  and  eating,  an  obvious  de- 
parture from  the  primitive  and  legal  usage,  but  one  regarded  by  our 
Lord  as  unessential  or  he  would  not  have  adopted  it ;  a  practical  reproof 
of  those  who,  even  under  a  spiritual  dispensation,  fight  about  attitudes 
and  postures,  as  among  the  weightier  matters  of  the  gospel.  Accord- 
ing to  the  usual  harmonical  arrangement,  the  first  words  of  the  Saviour 
at  this  interview  were  those  preserved  by  Luke  (22,  15-18).  followed 
by  a  second  strife  for  the  pre-eminence  (Luke  22,  24-30),  and  this  by 
the  washing  of  the  feet  of  the  apostles  with  the  following  discourse 
(John  13. 1-20),  and  this  by  what  is  here  recorded  in  all  four  gospels 
(Matt.  26,  21.  Luke  22,  21.  John  13.  21.)  Oneofyou  shall  betray  me 
(in  the  sense  before  explained  on  v.  10),  the  {one)  eating  loith  me,  not 
merely  one  of  those  now  at  the  table  and  partaking  of  the  paschal  meal, 
but  one  who,  in  some  special  and  peculiar  sense,  might  be  said  to  eat 
with  Christ,  from  which  it  has  been  inferred  that  Judas  sat  next  him 
upon  one  side,  and  partook  of  the  same  dish,  a  supposition  favoured  by 
the  words  of  John  (12,  26.)  Those  of  ]\Iark,  however,  may  contain  an 
allusion  to  Ps.  41,9,  which  John  expressly  quotes  (13, 18.) 

19.  And  they  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto 
him  one  by  one,  (Is)  it  I?  and  another  (said.  Is)  it  1 1 

The  effect  of  this  terrible  announcement  on  the  minds  of  the  disci- 


MAKK  14,  19.  20.  879 

pies.  They  'began  (at  once,  on  hearing  it)  to  he  sorrowful^  or  more  ex- 
actly, to  1)6  grieved.,  distressed,  as  the  Greek  word  is  a  passive  verb 
and  not  an  adjective,  0?ie  iy  one,  an  unusual  Greek  phrase,  the  sense 
of  which  however  is  clear  from  its  obvious  composition.  A}ul  another, 
although  sometimes  ridiculed  by  hypercritics  as  unmeaning  and  super- 
fluous after  saying  one  hy  one,  is  a  perfectl}^  natural  expression  belong- 
ing to  the  dialect  of  common  life.  The  first  phrase  only  denotes  order 
and  succession,  that  they  asked  the  question  severally  not  together, 
while  the  other  says  the  same  thing  in  another  form,  that  when  one 
had  spoken  then  another  would  re-echo  the  inquiry.  Far  from  being 
a  vain  repetition  or  tautology,  this  supplemental  clause  adds  not  a  little 
to  the  life  and  spirit  of  the  whole  description.  Is  it  /,  though  essen- 
tially correct,  is  not  an  adequate  translation  of  the  Greek  phrase,  which 
is  negative  in  form  and  can  only  be  expressed  in  English  by  a  circum- 
locution, being  really  equivalent  to  saying.  It  is  not  /,  is  it  ?  (see  above, 
on  4,  21.)  This  is  not  a  difference  of  mere  form,  as  it  shows  that  each 
of  the  disciples,  in  the  act  of  asking,  really  asserted  his  own  innocence 
or  disavowed  the  guilt  of  treason,  and  aggravates  the  shameless  hy- 
pocris}^  of  Judas  in  propounding  the  same  question  (Matt.  26,  25.)  It 
is  possible,  indeed,  though  hardly  probable,  that  the  additional  clause 
(and  another,  Is  it  If)  may  have  tacit  reference  to  Judas,  and  may  be 
intended  to  distinguish  him  from  the  eleven,  as  no  longer  one  of  the 
same  body,  but  another,  i.  e.  an  alien  and  intruder. 

20.  And  lie  answered  and  said  unto  them,  (It  is)  one 
of  the  twelve,  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish. 

And  he  answering  (this  general  inquiry)  said  to  them  (collectively, 
as  all  had  asked  him.)  One  of  (not  the  simple  genitive,  but  as  in  v.  18, 
a  preposition  meaning  out  of,  (from  among)  the  ^icefoe  (the  chosen  com- 
pan}^  now  present.)  Tliat  dippeth  (i.  e.  who  dips),  though  correct  in 
sense,  might  be  referred  by  a  hasty  reader  to  the  twelve  collectively,  as 
an  inaccurate  expression  for  who  dip  ;  but  there  is  no  such  ambiguity 
in  the  original,  which  strictly  means  the  (one)  dipping,  and  like  the 
similar  expression  in  v.  18,  seems  to  describe  the  traitor  as  particularly 
near  to  Christ  at  table  and  in  some  peculiar  sense  partaking  with  him, 
dipping  the  bread  into  the  dish  or  bowl  before  them,  and  containing 
probably  a  broth  or  liquid  preparation  of  the  bitter  herbs  which  formed 
part  of  the  paschal  supper.  If  there  was  only  one  such  dish  upon  the 
table  of  which  all  made  use  alike,  this  answer  would  be  no  description 
of  the  person,  but  a  mere  reiteration  of  the  general  fact  that  one  of  them 
would  be  the  traitor,  and  even  that  expressed  in  an  unusual  manner 
with  the  definite  article,  the  (one)  dipping.  If  we  suppose,  upon  the 
other  hand,  that  there  were  several  such  bowls  or  dishes,  one  of  which, 
or  the  onl)'^  ona  upon  the  other  supposition,  was  now  standing  before 
Christ  and  his  betrayer,  both  of  whom  were  making  use  of  it  at  one 
and  the  same  moment,  then  this  expression  (the  one  dipping)  is  a  real 
designation  of  the  person.  John's  account  of  a  previous  communication 
between  two  of  the  disciples  and  their  master,  not  alluded  to  in  either 


380  MARK  14,  21.  22. 

of  the  other  gospels,  admits  of  an  easy  reconciliation  with  them,  which 
belongs  however  to  a  different  place. 

21.  The  Son  of  man  indeed  goetli,  as  it  is  written  of 
liini ;  but  woe  to  that  man  bj  A\'Tiom  the  Son  of  man  is 
betrayed  !  good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  never  been 
born. 

The  Son  of  Man.,  the  Messiah,  still  before  you  in  the  form  of  a  ser- 
vant, and  approaching  the  end  of  his  long  humihation,  goetli^  is  now 
going,  taking  his  departure  out  of  life,  about  to  die,  as  it  is  written^ 
has  been  written,  has  been  long  on  record  (see  above,  on  1,  2.  7, 6.  9, 
12. 13.  11, 17.)  OJ]  about,  concerning  him,  as  the  subject  of  the  prophe- 
cies referred  to,  which  must  therefore  be  fulfilled  in  him.  Indeed,  the 
particle  of  concession  (^ueV),  meaning,  it  is  true,  and  corresponding  to 
the  lut  (pi)  in  the  next  clause,  both  together  giving  to  the  verse  the 
antithetical  or  balanced  form,  so  much  affected  and  admired  in  Greek 
prose.  But  icoe  to,  and  alas  for  (see  above,  on  13, 17,  both  wrath  and 
pity  being  here  appropriate)  that  man,  not  merely  the  man,  or  this  man, 
but  yonder  man,  as  if  Judas  were  already  at  a  distance,  or  perhaps 
pointing  him  out  as  one  already  severed  from  that  sacred  bod}'',  of 
which  Christ  was  the  head  and  the  apostles  members.  By  lohom, 
through  whom,  by  whose  agenc3^  Betrayed,  delivered  over  to  the 
power  of  his  enemies  (see  above,  on  vs.  10.  11.)  The  original  form  of 
the  last  clause  is  peculiar  and  considerably  altered  in  the  version.  Good 
were  it  (literally  teas  it)  for  him  (or  according  to  the  latest  text  with- 
out the  verb,  good  for  him)  if  not  lorn  was  that  man.  This  is  often 
urged  as  one  of  the  most  cogent  arguments  in  proof  of  the  eternity  of 
future  punishments,  because,  however  they  might  be  prolonged,  if  they 
were  ever  to  have  an  end,  such  an  existence  would  be  still  preferable  to 
nonentity.  The  only  objection  to  this  argument  in  favour  of  a  doctrine 
clearly  set  forth  elsewhere,  is  the  seeming  violence  of  putting  a  strict 
logical  interpretation  on  a  phrase  which  seems  to  be  proverbial  and 
popular.     (See  above,  on  9,  42.) 

22.  And  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed, 
and  l)rakc  (it),  and  gave  to  them,  and  said,  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body. 

In  close  connection  with  the  paschal  feast,  as  a  supplement  to  it  and 
a  substitute  for  it,  our  Lord,  employing  the  materials  already  on  the 
table,  i.  e.  the  bread  and  wine  partially  consumed  in  the  repast  just 
finishel,  institutes  a  new  solemnity,  to  be  observed  forever  in  the 
church  of  the  new  dispensation.  The  simplicity  of  the  rite  itself,  of  the 
mode  in  which  it  was  established,  and  of  its  record  in  the  gospels,  is  in 
striking  contrast  with  the  pomp  and  mystery  which  have  since  been 
thrown  around  it.  Of  this  institution  we  have  four  distinct  accounts, 
by  Mark  (vs.  22-25),  Matthew  (20,  20-29),  Luke  (22,  19  20),  and 


MARK  14,  22.  23.  381 

Paul  (1  Cor.  11,  23-25.)     They  differ  only  as  to  fulness  and  the  order 
in  which  some  particulars  are  stated.     Paul's  account  is  hi  one  respect 
the  most  authoritative,  as  it  was  communicated  to  him  by  the  risen 
Saviour  (1  Cor.  11.23.)     As  tliey  did  eat  (literally,  tJiey  eating)  i.  e. 
while  they  were  partaking:  of  the  paschal  supper.     Talcing  hread.  or  a 
'bread  {the  tread.  Matt.  2G,  26),  i.  e.  a  loaf  or  cake  of  the  unleavened 
bread  eaten  at  the  Passover,  and  which  the  Jews  now  make  in  thin 
hard  cakes  or  biscuits.     Having  blessed,  and  at  the  same  time  given 
thanks  (Luke  22, 19.  1  Cor.  11,24),  liebra'ke  it  (in  two,  or  into  pieces), 
and  gave  to  them  (the  apostles,  still  reclining  at  the  table.)     Eat  is 
omitted  by  the  latest  critics  in  the  text  of  Mark,  as  an  assimilation  to 
that  of  J\latthew.     Luke  and  Paul  have  neither  talce  nor  eat,  both  which 
however  are  implied  in  the  whole  transaction.     This  is  my  body,  com- 
mon to  all  four  accounts,  appears  so  unambiguous  and  simple  an  ex- 
pression, that  it  is  hard  to  recognize  in  it  the  occasion  and  the  subject 
of  the  most  protracted  and  exciting  controversy  that  has  rent  the 
church  within  the  last  thousand  years.     That  controversy  is  so  purely 
theological  that  it  has  scarcely  any  basis  in  the  exposition  of  the  text ; 
the  only  word  upon  which  it  could  fasten  (the  verb  is)  being  one  which 
in  Aramaic  would  not  be  expressed,  and  therefore  belongs  merely  to 
the  Greek  translation  of  our  Saviour's  language.     Until  the  strong  un- 
guarded figures  of  the  early  fathers  had  been  petrified  into  a  dogma,  at 
first  by  popular  misapprehension,  and  at  last  by  theological  perversion, 
these  words  suggested  no  idea  but  the  one  which  they  still  convey  to 
every  plain  unbiassed  reader,  that  our  Saviour  calls  the  bread  his  body 
in  the  same  sense  that  he  calls  himself  a  door  (John  10.  9),  a  vine  (John 
15,1),  a  root  (Rev.  22,  16),  a  star,  and  is  described  by  many  other 
metaphors  in  scripture  (see  John  10,  9.)     The  bread  was  an  emblem  ' 
of  his  flesh,  as  wounded  for  the  sins  of  men,  and  as  administered  for 
their  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace. 

23.  And  lie  took  the   cup,  and  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  gave  (it)  to  them,  and  they  all  drank  of  it. 

The  same  act  is  then  described  in  relation  to  the  wine,  and  almost 
in  the  same  words.  The  cup,  still  standing  on  the  table  ;  whether  the 
third  or  any  other  of  the  five  cups  in  the  later  Jewish  ritual,  is  as  un- 
important as  it  is  uncertain.  Giving  thanJcs  is  not  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  blessing  in  the  verse  preceding,  as  if  he  onl}-  blessed  the  bread 
and  only  gave  thanks  for  the  wine ;  but  as  two  descriptions  of  the 
same  act,  each  presenting  one  of  its  component  parts,  benediction  and 
thanksgiving,  from  the  latter  of  which  the  \vhole  service  afterwards  de- 
rived the  name  of  eiicharist.  They  all  (an  expression  not  used  of  the 
bread),  a  sort  of  prospective  or  prophetic  comment  on  the  withholding 
of  the  cup  from  the  laity  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

24.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the 
new  testament,  wdiich  is  shed  for  many. 


382  MARK  14,  24.  25.  26. 

This  is  my  Mood  must  of  course  receive  the  same  construction  as 
this  is  my  Jjody  in  v.  22.  That  of  (or  the  blood  of)  the  new  testament 
(or  covenant.)  The  Greek  noun  {^dia&qKrj)^  from  a  verb  which  means 
to  arrange,  dispose,  or  settle,  means  itself  arrangement,  disposition,  set- 
tlement, with  special  appHcation  to  two  kinds,  a  testamentar}-  arrange- 
ment and  a  mutual  compact,  or  a  last  will  and  a  covenant.  The  only  clear 
case  of  the  former  meaning  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  is  that 
in  lleb.  9,  IG.  17,  followed  almost  immediately  (v.  20)  by  an  example 
of  the  other,  referring,  as  in  this  place,  to  the  Mosaic  or  Levitical  cove- 
nant, ratified  with  Israel  at  Sinai,  and  sealed  with  sacrificial  blood,  pre- 
figuring the  blood  of  Christ  as  the  seal  of  a  new  or  better  covenant  (Heb. 
7,22.  8,6-10.  9,20.  10,16.29.  12,24.30.)  That  shed,  or  the  (blood) 
shed,  for  many,  not  only  for  their  benefit  but  in  their  stead,  as  the  bloody 
sacrifices  symbolized,  not  only  expiation  in  the  general,  or  expiation  by 
the  sacrifice  of  life,  but  vicarious  atonement  in  particular,  or  expiation 
by  the  sacrifice  of  life  for  life  (Lev.  17,11.) 

25.  Yerilj  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  that  I  drink  it  new  in  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

Amen,  I  say  to  you,  see  above,  on  vs.  9. 18,  and  the  places  there 
referred  to.  Fruit,  offspring,  a  term  properly  applied  to  animals,  but 
also,  by  a  natural  metonymy,  to  plants.  The  whole  phrase  is  a  peri- 
phrasis for  loine,  not  merely  that  before  them,  but  the  whole  species  or 
variety  of  beverage.  The  sense  of  grapes,  which  would  be  otherwise 
more  obvious,  is  here  excluded  by  the  verb  to  drinTc.  That  (literally 
when)  1  drink  it  new  (not  anew  or  again,  but  fresh  and  at  the  same 
time  of  a  new  sort)  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  simplest  explanation 
of  these  words  is  that  which  makes  them  a  solemn  though  ±iu;urative 
declaration,  that  the  Jewish  Passover  was  now  to  be  forever  superseded 
by  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  Christian  ordinance.  These  words  do  not 
decide  the  question  whether  Christ  himself  partook  of  this  first  sacra- 
ment, because  they  may  refer  to  the  wine  of  the  paschal  not  the  eucha- 
ristical  repast. 

26.  And  when  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  they  went  out 
into  the  mount  of  Olives. 

When  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  in  Greek  a  single  word,  hymning  (or 
having  hymned),  referring  no  doubt  to  the  series  of  psalms  usually 
chanted  at  the  Passover  and  known  in  the  later  Jewish  ritual  as  the 
Great  Ilallel.  There  is  of  course  no  allusion  to  the  modern  distinction 
between  psalms  and  hj-mns,  nor  to  the  modern  use  of  metre,  rhyme, 
and  artificial  melody  and  harmony,  all  which  appear  to  have  been 
wholly  unknown  to  the  ancient  church,  and  have  still  less  authority 
from  scripture  than  the  use  of  human  compositions  as  an  aid  in  worship, 
when  these  are  agreeable  to  God's  word  in  their  sentiment  and  sjjirit.  The 
original  church-music  was  most  probably  the  simplest  kind  of  chant- 


MARK  14,  26-29.  383 

ing;.  in  which  all  could  join  without  laborious  instruction  or  the  cum- 
bersome  machinery  of  choirs,  music-masters,  singing-schools  or  instru- 
ments, though  these  appliances  are  not  unlawful  or  at  variance  with  the 
character  of  spiritual  worship.  Into  the  Mount  of  Olives,  from  which, 
i.  e.  from  Bethany,  a  Tillage  on  the  eastern  slope,  our  Lord  had  proba- 
bly come  in  to  celebrate  the  Passover,  and  now  goes  part  of  the  way 
back,  not  as  before  to  spend  the  night  among  his  friends,  but  to  enter 
on  his  passion  and  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  his  betrayer. 

27.  And  Jesiis  saitli  unto  tliem,  All  ye  shall  be  ofFencl- 
ecl  because  of  me  this  night ;  for  it  is  written,  I  will  smite 
the  shepherd,  and  the  sheej)  shall  be  scattered. 

As  it  matters  little  at  what  precise  part  of  the  evening  or  the  meal 
these  words  were  uttered,  there  is  no  need  of  transposing  them  in  order 
to  assimilate  them  to  the  order  of  John's  narrative.  The  words  them- 
selves have  also  been  preserved  by  Matthew  (20,  31)  nearly  in  the  same 
form.  They  contain  a  prediction,  that  Christ's  nearest  followers,  the 
twelve  apostles,  should  that  night  be  offended  in  him,  not  offended  at 
him,  in  the  modern  sense,  i.  e.  disj^leased  and  alienated  in  affection,  but 
their  faith  staggered  and  their  confidence  impaired,  so  that  at  the  first 
approach  of  danger,  the}''  would  be  dispersed,  thus  verifying,  although 
not  exhausting,  the  prophetic  picture  drawn  by  Zechariah  (13,  7)  of 
God's  people  scattered  like  a  flock  of  sheep  on  the  removal  of  the 
shepherd,  a  comparison  peculiarly  appropriate  in  this  case,  on  account 
of  the  timidity  and  helplessness,  the  want  of  clear  views  and  a  strong 
will,  displayed  by  the  apostles  at  the  death  of  Christ. 

28.  But  after  that  I  am  risen,  I  will  go  before  you  into 
Galilee. 

This  discouraging  announcement  is  immediately  succeeded  and  ma- 
terially qualified  by  a  cheering  assurance  that  the  dissolution  of  the 
apostolic  body  would  be  transient ;  that  it  would  soon  be  reconstructed, 
and  that  Christ  himself,  then  risen  from  the  dead,  would  lead  the  way, 
or  go  before  them,  to  their  old  field  of  labour,  and  (as  to  most  of  them) 
their  ancient  home  in  Galilee.  Go  tefore  is  a  pastoral  act,  referring  to 
the  figure  of  a  flock  in  the  preceding  verse  (compare  John  10.  27.)  The 
verse  may  mean  that  before  the  Galileans  could  return  home  from  the 
passover,  he  would  be  risen  from  the  dead,  and  once  more  at  the  head 
of  the  procession  (see  above,  on  9,  32.) 

29.  But  Peter  said  unto  him,  Although  all  shall  be 
offended,  yet  (will)  not  I. 

Not  contented  with  this  promise,  that  their  separation  should  be 
only  for  a  time  and  followed  by  a  glad  reunion,  Peter,  with  character- 
istic forwardness  and  self-will,  undertakes  to  make  his  own  case  an  ex- 


384  MARK  14,  29.  30. 


ception  to  the  general  defection,  little  imagininj^  in  what  sense  it  would 
prove  to  be  so.  Fastening  on  the  first  words  of  our  Lord's  prediction 
{ye  shall  he  offended  in  me),  and  as  if  he  had  heard  nothing  of  what 
followed,  he  declares,  and  ij[  (even  if)  all  (the  rest),  or  still  more 
arrogantly,  all  (men)  shall  he  offended  in  thee,  tfut  (or  yet)  not  I.  This 
is  one  of  the  most  unfavourable  specimens  on  record  of  the  dark  or 
weak  side  of  this  great  apostle's  character,  because  it  exhibits,  not  mere 
self-sufficiency  and  overweening  self-reliance,  but  an  arrogant  estimate 
of  his  own  strength  in  comparison  with  others,  particularly  with  his 
brethren  and  associates  in  the  apostolic  office.  This  invidious  self- 
preference  is  thought  by  some  to  be  pointedly  yet  gently  hinted  at,  in 
that  searching  question  of  our  Lord  to  Peter  at  the  sea  of  Galilee  (John 
21,  15),  ''Simon  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  f''  i.  e. 
more  than  any  of  his  brethren,  the  chief  of  whom  were  present  upon 
that  occasion  (John  21,  2),  and  not  one  of  whom  had  been  allowed  to 
sink  so  low  as  to  deny  his  master  in  the  presence  of  his  enemies,  except 
the  very  one  who,  in  his  blindness  and  self-confidence,  gratuitously 
volunteered  the  rash  engagement  in  the  verse  before  us. 

30.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  liim,  Yerily  I  say  unto  tliee, 
that  this  day,  (even)  in  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow 
twice,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice. 

In  order  to  leave  this  selt-sufficiency  without  excuse,  our  Lord  dis- 
tinctly warns  him  that  within  a  few  hours,  on  the  very  day  then  pass- 
ing, in  the  very  night  then  coming  on,  he  would  deny  all  knowledge  of 
the  person  whom  he  now  declared  himself  incapable  of  leaving  even  for 
a  moment.  To-day  has  reference  to  the  complete  daj'-  of  twenty-four 
hours  (what  Paul  calls  the  wx^n/j^epou,  2  Cor.  11,  35);  this  night  to 
that  part  of  it  during  which  darkness  prevails ;  so  that  the  one  is  a  more 
precise  specification  of  the  other.  Before  the  coc^  croic  tic  ice.  i.  e.  at 
the  usual  times,  first  about  the  middle  of  the  night,  and  then  a  few 
hours  later,  these  being  the  familiar  limits  of  the  third  watch  called 
coclc-croicing  (see  above,  on  13,  35.)  As  the  second  cock-crow  was  the 
one  most  commonly  oljservcd  and  reckoned  as  a  note  of  time,  the  same 
division  of  the  night  may  be  defined  by  sa^^ing,  he/ore  tlie  coch  croic  (i.  e. 
in  the  morning),  which  is  the  form  of  expression  actually  here  em- 
ployed in  all  the  other  gospels  (iMatt.  26,  34.  Luke  22,  34.  John  13, 
38.)  The  difference  is  the  same  as  that  between  saying  hefore  the  hell 
rings  and  hefore  tJie  second  hell  rings  (for  church  or  dinner),  the  refer- 
ence in  both  expressions  being  to  tlie  last  and  most  important  signal,  to 
which  the  first  is  only  a  preliminary.  The  existence  or  occurrence  of 
the  latter,  though  expressly  mentioned  only  in  the  last  phrase,  is  not 
excluded  by  the  first,  and  if  previousl}^  known,  may  be  considered  as 
included  in  it.  Deny  me,  i.  e.  profess  not  to  know  me,  which  was  a 
virtual  though  not  a  formal  abjuration  of  his  friendship  and  authority. 

31.  But  he  spake  the  more  vehemently,  If  I  should  die 


MARK  14,  31.  32.  385 

with  tlioe,  I  will  not  deny  thee  in  any  wise.     Likewise 
also  said  they  all. 

This  additional  and  more  specific  premonition,  which  might  ahuost 
seem  sufficient  to  prevent  its  own  fulfihiient.  had  a  very  different  effect,  not 
only  upon  Peter,  but  upon  the  rest  of  the  apostles.  Its  effect  on  him 
was  to  produce  a  frequent  iteration  of  the  vow  already  uttered.  More 
vehemently  is  not  an  exact  translation  of  the  Greek  word,  which  ex- 
presses quantity  not  quality,  and  means  abundantly,  superabundantly, 
excessively  (compare  the  cognate  forms  in  6,  51.  12.  40.  44.)  Sx^cike  or 
talked^  uttered  still  more  in  the  same  strain,  that  is  not  recorded.  The 
effect  upon  the  others  was  a  feeble  echo  of  their  ardent  spokesman's  vio- 
lent asseverations,  a  proceeding  very  natural  in  such  a  situation,  and  no 
doubt  expressive  of  sincere  affection  in  the  minds  of  most,  but  no  less 
inconsiderate  and  rash  than  Peter's  pledge,  without  its  independence 
and  originality  ;  a  difference  suggested  by  the  very  form  of  words  in 
which  it  is  recorded,  likewise  (or  m  too)  also  all  said  (or  icere  saying.) 

32.  And  they  came  to  a  place  which  was  named  Geth- 
semane ;  and  he  saith  to  his  disciples.  Sit  ye  here,  while 
I  shall  pray. 

If  the  conversation  just  recorded  (vs.  27-31)  took  place  on  the  way 
from  the  city  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  Mark's  arrangement  may  be 
reckoned  strictly  chronological ;  but  eve.n  if  it  passed  before  they  left 
the  house,  such  resumptions  and  recurrences  are  natural  and  common 
in  all  narrative  style,  and  we  have  met  with  one  already  in  this  chapter 
(see  above,  on  v.  3.)  The  verse  before  us  is  then  to  be  explained  as 
taking  up  the  story  where  the  writer  dropt  it  (in  v.  27),  to  relate  what 
occurred  a  little  while  before.  And  tliey  come  (the  graphic  or  descrip- 
tive present)  into  a  i^lace^  not  in  the  vague  sense  of  a  spot  or  situation, 
which  would  have  required  another  Greek  word  (tottoi^),  but  in  the 
specific  sense  which  we  attach  to  it  in  speaking  of  a  gentleman's  place, 
i.  e.  farm  or  country  seat.  (Compare  the  use  of  the  same  word  in 
John  4,  5,  where  it  is  rendered  ^^ottc^  of  ground^  i.  e.  piece  of  land,  and 
in  Acts  1,  18.  4,  34.  5,  3.  28,  7,  where  it  is  rendered  Jield^  land^  lands, 
possessions.)  Some  suppose  its  use  here  to  imply  the  presence  or 
vicinity  of  dwellings,  an  assumption  which  is  afterwards  applied  to  the 
solution  of  some  seeming  difficulties  in  this  history.  OfwMeh  the  name 
(is)  GefJisemane,  or  oil-press,  an  appropriate  designation  of  a  place  on 
the  ]\Iouut  of  Olives.  It  was  not,  however,  a  mere  mill  or  manufactory 
of  oil,  but  an  enclosed  oliveyard  or  garden  (-John  18, 1),  which  the 
local  tradition  still  points  out,  beyond  the  valley  or  brook  Kedron,  at 
the  foot  of  Olivet.     Sit  (or  sit  doion)  here,  while  (or  until)  I  pray. 

33.  And  he  taketh  with  him  Peter  and  James  and 
John,  and  began  to  be  sore  amazed,  and  to  be  very  heavy. 

Out  of  the  whole  number  of  apostles  he  now  chooses  the  same  three 
17 


386  MARK  14,  33.  34. 

who  had  witnessed  the  transient  but  transcendent  glories  of  his  meta- 
morphosis or  transfiguration  (9, 12),  to  behold  the  opposite  extreme  of 
his  deepest  abasement  and  humiliation.  These  may  have  been  taken 
with  him  as  the  future  witnesses  of  what  they  saw,  or  from  his  natural 
desire  as  a  man  to  have  friends  near  him  while  he  suffered,  though  un- 
able to  relieve  or  help  him.  Whither  he  took  them  is  not  stated,  but 
most  probably  into  the  interior  recesses  of  the  garden,  while  the  rest 
remained  about  the  entrance  or  not  far  within  it.  The  idea  of  some, 
that  they  remained  in  the  house  of  the  proprietor  or  tenant,  is  both 
needless  and  gratuitous.  Sore  amazed,  a  very  strong  Greek  word  de- 
noting both  surprise  and  consternation  (see  above,  on  9, 15),  and  here 
used  in  its  strongest  sense  to  signify  the  preternatural  depression  and 
alarm,  of  which  our  Saviour  condescended  to  partake,  as  the  represent- 
ative and  surety  of  his  people.  The  other  verb,  although  of  doubtful 
derivation,  is  employed  by  Xenophon  and  Plato  to  denote  extreme 
anxiety  and  anguish. 

34.  And  saith  unto  them,  My  soul  is  exceeding  sor- 
rowful unto  death  ;  tarry  ye  here,  and  watch. 

He  does  not  conceal  his  feelings  from  his  three  companions,  but  ex- 
presses them  in  terms  still  stronger  than  those  used  by  the  evangelist 
himself.  My  soul  is  not  a  mere  periphrasis  for  the  pronoun  (/),  but 
refers  his  strange  sensations  more  directly  to  the  inward  seat  of  feeling- 
and  emotion.  Exceeding sorroipful.m  Greek  a  compound, also  used  by 
Aristotle  and  Isocrates,  and  primaril}^  meaning  grieved  all  round,  en- 
compassed, shut  in,  by  distress  on  every  side,  tinto  (as  far  as)  death, 
so  that  death  itself  can  add  but  little  to  the  agonies  now  suffered ;  or  so 
that  the  least  addition  must  exceed  any  human  power  of  endurance 
and  result  in  death.  Compare  the  similar  expression  of  the  prophet 
Jonah  (4,  9.)  Tarry  (remain,  continue)  here,  i.  e.  in  the  spot  to  which 
he  had  conducted  them,  apart  from  the  remainder  of  the  compan3^  He 
feels  the  need  of  more  complete  seclusion  even  from  his  three  com- 
panions, as  essential  to  his  liberty  in  prayer.  Watcli,  either  in  the 
primar}^  and  strict  sense  of  the  verb  both  in  Greek  and  English,  i.  e. 
keep  awake,  or  in  the  secondary  but  more  usual  sense,  be  upon  your 
guard,  protect  yourselves  from  danger  Ijy  looking  out  for  its  approach 
at  any  moment.  lie  does  not  ask  their  prayers  on  his  behalf,  but  only 
their  watchful  circumspection  on  their  own. 

35.  And  he  went  forward  a  little,  and  fell  on  the 
ground,  and  prayed  that,  if  it  were  possible,  the  hour 
might  pass  from  him. 

And  going  on  (or  forward,  or  before  them)  a  little  (while  or  space, 
more  probably  the  latter),  he  fell  uyon  the  earth  (or  ground'),  not  as  an 
ordinary  posture  of  devotion,  but  as  the  expression  and  effect  of  an  ex 
traordinary  anguish.     iNIark  first  gives  the  sum  and  substance  of  the 
prayer,  and  then  a  portion  of  its  very  language.    The  petition  was  that 


MARK  14,  35.  36.  387 

if  it  were  possible,  i.  e.  compatible  with  God's  perfections  and  designs, 
the  hour  or  time,  so  long  expected,  of  his  bloody  passion,  might  pass 
from  him.  be  removed,  and  cease,  without  his  suffering  what  now  im- 
pended. All  attempts  to  reconcile  this  prayer  with  the  assumption 
that  our  Lord  did  not  really  desire  what  he  thus  asked,  are  subversive 
of  the  very  use  of  language,  and  directly  contradictor}^  to  the  letter  of 
the  scriptures,  The  key  to  this  mysterious  enigma,  so  far  as  it  can  be 
unlocked  to  the  mind  of  creatures,  is  afforded  by  the  obvious  consider- 
ation, that  our  Lord  endured  precisely  the  same  kind  of  suffering  which 
any  mere  man  would  experience  in  the  same  situation,  but  without 
sin  of  his  own.  He  therefore  shrank  from  death,  and  sunk  be- 
neath the  sense  of  God's  wrath,  no  less  really  than  we  do.  This  was  a 
necessary  incident  of  his  incarnation,  and  essential  to  his  genuine 
humanity,  his  actual  possession  of  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul. 
But  besides  this  unavoidable  participation  in  the  sufferings  of  the  race 
whose  nature  he  assumed,  his  sufferings  even  in  the  garden  were 
vicarious ;  he  not  only  suffered  with  but  for  men,  in  their  place,,  in- 
stead of  them ;  and  though  he  could  not  simply  as  a  man  partake  of 
sorrows  caused  by  sin,  because  his  own  humanity  was  sinless,  he  could 
and  did  partake  of  them  as  the  great  atoning  sacrifice  by  whose  stripes 
we  are  healed  (see  Isai.  53,  5.  1  Pet.  2,  24.)  For  both  these  reasons, 
his  expressed  desire  to  es-cape  is  to  be  strictly  understood  as  a  neces- 
sary incident  of  his  humanity,  and  also  as  a  part  cf  his  vicarious  suf- 
fering. 

36.  And  he  said,  Abba,  Father,  all  things  (are)  possi- 
ble unto  thee  ;  take  away  tliis  cup  from  me  :  nevertlieless 
not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt. 

Having  indirectly  stated  the  contents  or  substance  of  his  prayer, 
Hark  gives  his  very  words,  or  their  equivalents,  using  the  first  person. 
All)a,  the  Aramaic  word  for  Father,  here  preserved  by  the  evangehst 
like  other  vernacular  expressions  which  we  have  already  met  v/ith  (see 
above,  on  5,41.  7, 11.  9,  5.  11,  21.)  He  also  gives  the  Greek  transla- 
tion, not  as  uttered  by  our  Lord  himself,  but  as  necessary  to  its  being 
understood  by  Gentile  readers.  This  seems  more  likely  in  itself,  and 
more  consistent  with  Mark's  usage  as  just  stated,  than  the  opinion  of 
some  writers,  that  the  two  forms,  Greek  and  Aramaic,  had  become 
combined  in  practice  so  as  to  form  one  name,  which  they  prove  from 
Paul's  emplo3-ing  the  same  combination  twice  in  his  epistles  (Rom.  8, 
15.  Gal.  4,  6.)  But  how  could  such  a  combination  have  arisen,  if  not 
from  the  necessities  of  those  to  whom  the  language  of  our  Lord  was  not 
vernacular  ?  It  is  not  only  possible,  indeed,  but  probable,  that  Paul's 
use  of  the  Aramaic  form  arose  from  the  tradition  of  our  Saviour's  hav- 
ing used  it  upon  this  occasion,  or  perhaps  as  a  customary  form  of  ad- 
dress in  his  habitual  devotions.  All  things  (are)  jJosdMe  to  thee,  a 
simple  recognition  of  the  divine  omnipotence,  without  reserve  or  meta- 
physical distinctions.  The  complete  submission,  in  the  last  clause,  to 
the  Father's  will,  without  regard  to  his  own  human  wishes,  is  a  glori- 


388  MARK   14,  37.  38. 


ous  triumph  of  our  Lord's  obedience,  even  over  the  severest  trial  that 
can  be  conceived  of.  .Though  he  really  desired,  as  a  man,  to  be  deliv- 
ered from  the  wrath  of  God,  yet,  even  as  a  man.  he  finally  consented  to 
endure  it,  as  the  only  means  by  which  to  save  his  people  from  their 
sins.     (Matt.  1,  21.) 

37.  And  he  cometh,  and  iindetli  them  sleeping,  and 

saith  unto  Peter,  Simon,  sleepest  thou?  couldest  thou  not 

watch  one  hour  ? 

He  cometh.  back  to  the  place  where  he  hath  left  the  three  disciples, 
the  distance  being  mentioned  exclusively  by  Luke  (22,  41.)  Findeth, 
a  discovery  surprising  not  to  him  but  to  the  reader  and  the  writer. 
Sleeping^  not  profoundly  but  at  intervals,  the  impression  naturally  made 
being  that  of  a  dozing  drowsy  state,  occasioned  by  distress  of  mind 
(Luke  22,  45.)  This  failure,  even  of  his  chosen  friends,  to  comfort  and 
sustain  him  by  their  wakeful  presence,  though  foreseen  and  as  it  were 
provided  for,  could  not  fail  to  aggravate  our  Lord's  distress  at  this  mo- 
mentous crisis.  His  question  to  Peter,  and  through  him  to  all,  ex- 
presses an  upbraiding  pity.  Sleej)est  thou,  is  it  possible  that  you  are 
sleeping,  whom  I  brought  with  me  and  left  here,  with  an  express  com- 
mand to  watch  while  I  was  praying  yonder  ?  Couldest  thou  not,  a 
strong  expression,  strictly  meaning,  wast  thou  not  strong  enough,  or 
liadst  thou  not  sufficient  strength  ?  (see  above,  on  5,  4.  9, 18.)  One  hour 
is  not  given  as  the  precise  time  of  his  separation  from  them,  but  as  a 
proverbial  expression  for  a  very  short  time.  (For  the  usage  of  the  Greek 
noun,  see  above,  on  G,  35.  11,  11.  13, 11.  32.) 

38.  Watch  je,  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation. 

The  spirit  truly  (is)  ready,  but  the  flesh  (is)  weak. 

What  they  could  not  do  from  sympathy  with  him,  they  might  well 
do  from  regard  to  their  own  safety.  Watch  (keep  awake,  and  on  your 
guard),  cmd  2iray  (not  for  me  but  for  yourselves),  that  ye  enter  not  into 
temptation^  or  some  trial  of  your  faith  and  patience,  more  severe  than 
you  can  bear.  The  meaning  is  not  that  this  trial  could  be  now  avert- 
ed, but  that  its  approach  made  watchfulness  and  prayer  a  more  becom- 
ing attitude  for  the  apostles  than  the  listlessness  and  indolence  of 
hopeless  sorrow.  The  last  clause  is  universall}^  regarded  as  a  gracious 
apology  for  their  remissness,  but  the  antithesis  is  variously  understood, 
some  supposing  flesh  and  spirit  to  be  simply  the  body  and  the  mind ; 
but  most  interpreters,  in  better  keeping  with  the  usage  of  the  terms, 
make  flesh  the  sinful  nature  with  its  culpable  infirmities,  and  spirit  the 
higher  dispositions  and  principles  produced  by  grace.  The  meaning 
then  is  that,  although  their  better  nature  was  inclined  to  do  what  he 

required,  the  remains  of  natural  corruption  hindered  it. 
» 

39.  And  again  he  went  away,  and  prayed,  and  spake 
the  same  words. 


MARK  14,  39.  40.  41.  389 


And  again  going  away  he  prayed  the  same  word.  This  was  not  a 
vain  repetition,  such  as  Christ  himself  forbids  (Matt.  G,  7),  but  an  em- 
phatic reassertion,  both  of  his  sincere  desire  to  escape  the  suffering  from 
which  nature  necessarily  recoiled,  and  of  his  equally  sincere  desire  that 
the  question  should  not  be  determined  by  this  natural  repugnance,  but 
by  the  sovereign  will  of  God  alone.  It  was  the  co-existence  of  these 
two  desires  in  his  soul  at  the  same  moment,  and  the  subjection  of  the 
one  to  the  other,  that  gives  character  and  meaning  to  this  great 
turning  point  or  juncture  in  the  process  of  our  Lord's  humiliation  and 
atoning  passion.  If  he  had  not  shrunk  from  death,  it  must  have 
been  because  he  was  impassible,  incapable  of  suffering,  and  therefore 
unfit  to  become  the  substitute  of  sinners  doou;ed  to  everlasting  woe. 
If  he  had  not  humbly  consented  to  endure  the  will  of  God  for  man's 
sake,  the  great  purpose  of  his  incarnation  must  have  been  unac- 
complished. But  by  doing  both,  both  perfectly,  and  both  at  once,  he 
proved  himself  to  be  indeed  tJie  one  Mediator  l)etweeii  God  and  men, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus  (1   Tim.  2,  5.) 

40.  And  when   lie  returned,  lie   found   them    asleep 

again,  for  their  eyes  were  heavy  ;  neither  Avist  they  what 

to  answer  him. 

And  returning  he  found  them  again  sleeping^  or  according  to  the 
latest  text,  again  coming  he  found  them  sleeping.  Coming,  returning, 
from  his  place  of  retirement,  after  his  second  prayer  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  verse.  Heavy  is  in  Greek  a  passive  participle  meaning  Jjur- 
dened,  weighed  down,  a  natural  expression,  perhaps  common  to  all  lan- 
guages, for  the  eftect  of  drowsiness  upon  the  eyelids ;  for  the  state  de- 
scribed here  (as  in  v.  37)  is  one  of  drowsiness  and  not  of  deep  sleep. 
Wist.,  the  past  tense  of  the  old  English  verb  to  icit,  synonymous  with 
IvnoiD.  And  they  'knew  not  what  to  ansicer  (literally  ichat  they  should 
ansicer)  him,  i.  e.  how  they  should  reply  to  his  reproaches,  or  account 
for  their  untimely  slumbers.  (See  above,  on  9.  6,  and  compare  Luke 
9,  32.) 

41.  And  he  cometh  the  third  time,  and  saith  nnto 
them,  Sleep  on  now,  and  take  (yonr)  rest :  it  is  enough, 
the  hour  is  come  :  behold,  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed  into 
the  hands  of  sinners. 

Sleep  on  noic,  literally,  sleep  the  rest  (of  the  time).  Some  editors 
point  the  text,  and  some  interpreters  explain  it,  as  a  question,  do  ye 
slee])  on  still  (or  still  further^  ?  But  these  English  phrases  are  inclu- 
sive of  the  present  and  describe  a  state  of  things  continuing  unchanged  ; 
whereas  the  Greek  (to  Xolttov)  refers  only  to  the  future,  and  alwa3'S 
when  applied  to  time  answers,  not  to  yet  or  still,  but  to  henceforth  or 
to  noiD  as  used  in  the  translation.  (Compare  Acts  27, 20.  1  Cor.  7,  20.  2 
Tim.  7;  8.  Heb.  10, 13.)  The  best  philological  interpreters,  therefore, 
take  the  verb  as  an  imperative.  Sleep  on  !   They  arc  not  agreed,  however. 


390  MARK  14,  41. 

as  to  the  sense  in  which  this  permission  or  command  is  to  be  understood. 
Some  regard  it  as  ironical,  implying  a  still  more  seyere  reproof  of  their 
oscitancy  and  inertness.  But  as  such  an  irony,  in  such  a  situation, 
seems  untimely  and  incongruous,  most  writers  understand  it  as  a  kind 
of  remission  of  a  charge  which  seemed  to  weigh  so  heavily  upon  them. 
As  if  he  had  said,  Still  asleep  !  (or  once  more  sleeping !)  AVell.  I  will 
disturb  your  rest  no  longer.  Sleep  on  for  the  rest  of  the  short  respite 
still  allowed  you.  The  obvious  objection  to  this  explanation  is  that  in 
the  same  breath  he  tells  them  to  awake  ;  but  even  this  is  not  unnatu- 
ral, if  taken  as  a  sort  of  after- thought,  suggested  by  the  sight  or  sound 
of  the  approaching  enemy.  Sleep  out  the  little  time  still  left — but  no, 
the  hour  is  come,  &c. !  It  is  enough,  another  doubtful  and  obscure  ex- 
pression found  in  Mark  alone.  In  Greek  it  is  a  single  word  (d7re;^et),  a 
verb,  which  according  to  its  etymology  and  composition,  means  both  to 
hold  dacJi,  (i.  e.  to  restrain  another  or  one's  self)  and  to  have  hack  (i.  e. 
to  receive  again,  receive  in  full,  be  satisfied.)  In  the  former  sense  the 
middle  voice  is  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  moral  and  relic^ious 
abstinence  (compare  Acts  15,  20.  29.  1  Thess.  4,  3.  5,  22.  1  Tim.%  3. 
1  Pet.  2, 11),  and  the  active  voice  to  local  distance  (as  in  7,  6  above, 
compare  Luke  7,  6.  15,  20.  24, 13.)  In  the  other  sense,  the  active  voice 
denotes  reception  both  of  gifts  and  payments  (as  in  Matt.  6,  2.  5, 16. 
Luke  6,  24.  Phil.  4,  18),  and  in  one  case  the  recovery  of  a  lost  posses- 
sion (Philem.  15.)  According  to  this  varj^ing  usage,  some  explain  the 
verb  here  as  a  personal  one  meaning,  he  is  (still)  afar  oJf\  i.  e.  the  be- 
trayer ;  or,  it  is  past.  i.  e.  the  crisis  and  the  agony.  But  the  latter 
meaning  is  not  justified  by  usage,  and  although  the  former  is  identical 
with  that  expres.sed  in  Luke  15,  20,  the  assertion  that  the  enemy  was 
far  off  would  be  neither  true  nor  relevant  in  this  connection.  The  con- 
struction commonly  adopted,  therefore,  is  impersonal,  derived  from  the 
primary  sense  of  receiving,  being  satisfied,  it  is  sufficient  (or  enough.) 
But  there  is  still  a  question  as  to  its  reference  or  application,  whether 
to  their  sleep  or  to  their  watching.  This  depends  in  some  degree  upon 
its  being  construed  with  what  goes  before  or  follows.  If  the  former,  it 
may  mean,  I  ask  no  more  of  you,  I  no  longer  ask  you  to  watch  with 
me ;  if  the  latter,  j^ou  have  slept  enough,  the  hour  is  come.  T'^his  last 
phrase  readily  recalls  to  mind  the  repeated  declaration  that  our  Saviour's 
hour  was  not  yet  come  (see  John  2, 4.  7.  30,  and  compare  John  12, 23. 
13, 1.  32.  17, 1.),  a  usage  which  imparts  peculiar  grandeur  and  so- 
lemnity to  this  announcement  that  the  long  expected  crisis  had  at  length 
arrived.  What  is  meant  by  the  hour  is  particularly  stated  in  the  last 
clause.  The  Son  of  Man,  i.  e.  the  incai-natc  Sou  of  God,  the  jNIessiah 
in  his  humiliation,  isdelicered,  handed  over  (the  certain  event,  although 
still  future,  being  spoken  of  as  actually  passing  at  the  moment)  into  the 
hands  of  the  sinners,  i.  e.  either  in  a  vague  sense,  of  the  woild  or  of 
mankind,  considered  as  the  adverse  pavtv,  or  more  specifically,  of  the 
wicked  men  who  are  to  be  his  unjust  judges  and  his  cruel  executioners. 
The  reference  is  not  merely  to  the  treachery  of  Judas  or  of  the  Jewish 
rulers  in  delivering  their  Messiah  to  the  Gentiles,  but  to  the  divine  aban- 
donment of  Christ  to  the  power  of  his  enemies  (compare  Acts  2,  23.) 


MARK   14,  42.  43.  391 


42.  Kise  up,  let  us  go ;  lo,  he  that  betrajeth  me  is  at 
hand. 

Rise  up,  or  rouse  yourselves,  the  Greek  word  properly  denoting,  not 
a  mere  corporeal  movement,  but  the  act  of  awaking  out  of  sleep  (see 
above,  on  4,  27.  6, 14.  16.  12,  26.  Let  us  go,  literally,  lead  (off,  or  lead 
the  way),  the  same  expression  that  is  used  above  in  1,  38,  and  there  ex- 
plained. The  supposition  of  an  eminent  interpreter,  that  this  is  an  ex- 
pression of  returning  terror,  or  a  half-unconscious  call  to  flight,  is  not 
only  most  unworthy  and  unpleasing  in  itself,  but  entirely  at  variance 
with  the  tenor  of  the  narrative,  which  clearly  represents  the  great  pre- 
liminary passion  as  now  past,  and  the  Redeemer  as  again  exhibiting  the 
same  serene  intrepid  spirit  that  had  breathed  in  his  farewell  discourses 
and  his  sacerdotal  prayer  preserved  by  John  (14-17.)  The  interrup- 
tion of  this  state  of  mind  and  feeling  by  the  conflict  in  Gethsemane,  so 
far  from  being  a  discrepancy  between  John  and  the  other  gospels,  is  a 
necessary  part  of  the  mysterious  process,  by  which  he  was  bruised  for 
our  iniquities  and  we  by  his  stripes  healed  (Isai.  53,  5.  1  Pet.  2, 24.)  It 
is  no  more  unnatural  or  inconsistent  than  the  transit  of  a  traveller 
through  a  deep  and  dark  intervening  valley,  from  one  mountain  to 
another,  only  to  descend  still  deeper  on  the  other  side.  Behold,  lo,  as 
some  thing  unexpected  and  surprising  to  his  hearers.  The  one  deliver- 
ing (or  detraying)  me  has  (already)  approached  (or  is  at  hand.) 

43.  And  immediatelj,  while  he  yet  spake,  conieth  Ju- 
das, one  of  the  twelve,  and  with  him  a  great  multitude 
with  swords  and  staves,  from  the  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  and  the  elders. 

And  immediately,  iNIark's  favourite  expression,  but  here  used  em- 
phatically to  denote  the  instantaneous  succession  of  the  facts  recorded. 
He  yet  spealdng,  so  that  there  could  be  no  interval  between  his  words 
and  the  appearance  of  the  enemy.  Cometh,  or  rather  is  at  hand,  is  on 
the  ground,  the  previous  movement  being  not  so  much  expressed  as 
implied.  One  (or  according  to  the  critics,  being  one)  of  the  twelve,  a 
member  of  the  Apostolic  body.  This  would  be  a  most  superfluous  de- 
scription if  it  were  not  intended  to  suggest  the  fearful  aggravation  of  the 
traitor's  guilt,  arising  from  his  long  and  intimate  relations  to  his  victim, 
which  accounts  moreover  for  the  words  beiug  found  in  all  the  parallels 
(see  Matt.  26,  47.  Luke  22,  47.)  A  great  multitude,  or  more  exactly, 
much  crowd,  not  great  numbers  merely,  but  a  promiscuous  assemblage, 
mob,  or  rabble  (see  above,  on  2,  4.  12.  12.  37.  41.)  As  the  words 
translated  swords  ami  staves  have  a  wider  sense,  and  might  perhaps  be 
reudered  hiioes  and  sticls,  they  suggest  the  idea  not  of  a  military  force 
but  of  an  armed  mob,  carrjdng  such  weapons  as  they  might  have  hastily 
caught  up  on  hearing  the  alarm  and  learning  the  arrest  tliat  was  about 
to  take  place.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  next  worda,  from  the 
chief  ptriests,  &c.,  which  relate  to  the  commission  held  by  Judas,  the 
intervening  clause  being  merely  a  parenthetical  description  of  the  crowd 


392  M  A  E  K   14,  43.  44. 

by  which  he  was  accompanied.  That  there  was  also  a  civil  or  militaiy 
force  to  secure  the  execution  of  the  order,  is  implied  here  and  explicitly 
affirmed  by  John  (18,  3.)  The  distinctness  and  formality  with  which 
the  chief  priests^  scribes,  anel  elders  are  enumerated  here  and  elsewhere 
(see  above,  on  vs.  1.  10,  and  on  8,  31.  10  33.  11,  27),  would  be  wholly 
unaccountable  except  upon  the  supposition  that  the  writer  wished  to 
keep  his  readers  constantly  in  mind,  that  this  was  not  a  personal 
but  national  transaction,  being  managed  both  by  popular  and  official 
agency. 

44.  And  he  that  betrayed  liim  had  given  them  a  to- 
ken, Whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,  that  same  is  he  :  take  him, 
and  lead  (him)  away  safely. 

The  (one)  delixering  (betraying)  Zi  m,  the  main  idea  being  not  that 
of  treachery  but  extradition,  which  however  necessarilj'  involved  the 
other  (see  above,  on  vs.  10.  11.  18.  21.  41.)  Had  gisen  theyn,  not  to  the 
mob,  but  to  the  officers  by  whom  he  was  accompanied.  A  tol'en,  not 
the  word  translated  sign  in  iNIatt.  2G,  48,  but  a  cognate  form  denoting 
a  concerted  signal,  not  unlike  the  military  countersign  in  Enghsh.  / 
sTiall  Mss,  or  viay  iciss,  the  original  construction  being  more  expressive 
of  contingency,  as  though  he  had  said,  '  if  I  should  ki<s  any  one,  that  is 
he.'  The  practice  of  saluting  with  a  kiss  prevails  to  this  day,  even  be- 
tween men,  not  only  in  the  East,  but  in  many  parts  of  Europe.  Some 
suppose  it  to  have  been  the  customary  salutation  used  by  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  as  it  afterwards  was  practised  in  the  apostolic  churches 
(Rom.  IG,  IG.  1  Cor.  IG,  20.  2  Cor.  12, 12.  1  Thes.  5,  26.  1  Pet.  5. 14.) 
This  would  make  the  act  of  Judas  appear  natural  and  unsuspicious 
(though  he  had  so  lately  left  his  master  and  his  brethren)  except  to  those 
who  were  already  in  the  secret.  Others  gather  from  the  silence  of  the 
history  on  this  point,  and  the  undue  familiarit}'-  which  seems  to  thejn 
implied  in  such  a  practice,  that  the  act  of  Judas  was  a  new  and  unac- 
customed one,  and  that  he  did  not  care  for  the  surprise  which  it  would 
naturally  call  forth,  as  his  purpose  would  by  that  time  be  accomplish- 
ed. Take  Mm,  a  stronger  word  in  Greek  meaning  master,  overpower, 
seize,  secure  him  (see  above,  on  v.  1,  on  1,  31.  3,  21,  5,  41.  6,  17.  7.  27. 
12,  12.)  Lead  hita  away  might  in  accordance  with  Greek  usage,  mean  to 
death  or  execution  (as  in  Acts  12, 19),  but  is  here  no  doubt  to  be  taken  in 
its  usual  and  proper  sense,  take  him  off,  i.  e.  in  custody  or  as  a  prisoner,  to 
those  who  sent  you.  Safely,  securely,  or  according  to  the  derivation 
of  the  Greek  verb,  infalhbly,  i.  e.  without  fail.  This  injunction  has 
by  some  been  represented  as  an  absurd  precaution  against  Christ's  mi- 
raculous power,  and  therefore  probably  a  fiction,  while  another  class 
r<>.aard  it  as  a  symptom  of  that  madness  or  infatuation  which  M-as  natu- 
ral hi  Judas's  position.  Perhaps  more  probable  than  either  is  the  sup- 
lioriition  that,  although  he  knew  our  Lord's  aversion  to  the  use  of  his 
extraordinary  power  for  his  own  protection  and  defence,  he  may  have 
apprehended  somc'attempt  to  rescue  him  by  his  disciples,  such  as  actu- 
ally took  place  but  was  instantly  arrested.     (See  below,  on  v.  47.) 


MARK  14,  45.  46.  47.  393 

45.  And  as  soon  as  he  was  come,  lie  goetli  straightway 
to  lilm,  and  saith,  Master,  Master,  and  kissed  him. 

As  soon  as  he  had  come,  in  Greek  a  single  word,  coming  (or  having 
come),  i.  e.  to  Gethseniane,  which  Judas  well  knew  as  a  place  of  pre- 
vious resort  (John  18,  2.)  Goeth  a  compound  form  of  the  same  parti- 
ciple, coming  to  (or  up  to)  him.  He  saith  (or  says)  as  if  the  scene  were 
still  actually  passing,  Rahhi,  Bahl)i,  the  original  vernacular  expression, 
here  preserved  by  Mark  (as  in  9,  5.  11,  21  above),  but  without  a  Greek 
translation  (as  in  v.  3G.  5,  41.  7,  34),  because  the  title  had  become  fa- 
miliar even  to  the  Gentile  reader.  The  notion  entertained  by  some, 
that  this  form  of  address  was  less  respectful  or  affectionate,  and  there- 
fore used  by  Judas  when  the  others  said  Lord  or  Master,  is  entirely 
groundless,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  John  1,  38.  49.  3,  2. 
26.  6,25,  even  in  the  English  version,  and  of  9,  5.  11,  21  above  and 
John  4,  31.  9,2.  11,  8,  in  the  original.  Kissed  hi  in,  an  emphatic  com- 
pound of  the  verb  in  the  preceding  verse,  without  exact  equivalent  in 
English,  but  denoting  that  he  kissed  him  in  an  affectionate  and  earnest 
manner,  adding  to  the  guilt  of  the  betrayal  by  the  manner  of  commit- 
ting it.  This  variation  of  expression,  while  it  serves  to  illustrate  the 
resources  of  the  language  for  the  accurate  expression  of  minute  distinc- 
tions, also  shows  the  precision  both  of  Mark  and  Matthew  in  emploj^- 
ing  it,  as  the  stronger  term  would  have  been  misplaced  in  recording 
wliat  the  traitor  said,  but  is  highly  appropriate  and  expressive  in  relat- 
ing what  he  did. 

46.  And  they  laid  tlieir  hands  on  him,  and  took  him. 

Omitting  Christ's  upbraiding  questions,  here  preserved  hy  Luke 
(22, 48)  and  Matthew  (26.  50),  Mark  relates  the  execution  of  the 
traitor's  orders  (as  recorded  in  v.  44)  and  the  actual  seizure  of  that 
sacred  person  which  had  so  often  and  so  long  escaped  them.  Laid, 
literallj',  threio  or  cast,  but  without  implying  undue  force  or  violence. 
TooJu  him,  the  verb  used  above  in  v.  44,  and  there  explained. 

47.  And  one  of  them  tliat  stood  by  drew  a  sword,  and 
smote  a  servant  of  the  high  priest,  and  cnt  off  his  ear. 

But  one  or  some  {one),  an  expression  which  may  have  been  intended 
to  suggest  that  this  was  the  random  act  of  a  single  person.  Of  those 
standing  ly  might  seem  to  intimate  that  it  was  a  chance  spectator  or 
an  unknown  individual;  but  we  learn  from  Matthew  (26.  51)  that  it 
was  one  of  tliose  with  Jesus,  and  from  John  (18, 10)  that  it  was  Simon 
Peter,  both  which  statements,  although  more  precise  than  Mark's,  are 
perfectly  consistent  with  it,  yet  regarded  by  the  sceptical  critics  as  un- 
questionable tokens  of  a  variant  tradition.  The  idea  that  the  earlier 
cvangehsts  suppressed  the  name  of  Peter,  lest  it  should  involve  him  in 
danger  as  the  author  of  this  injury,  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  fact 
that  he  was  recognized  a  few  hours  after  by  a  near  relation  of  the  man 


394  MARK  14,  47.  48.  49. 

whom  he  had  wounded  (John  12,  26),  and  also  with  tlie  fact  that  all 
complaint  on  that  score  had  been  silenced  by  our  Saviour's  last  recorded 
miracle  of  healin<2:  (Luke  22,  51.)  Drmoing  the  sword,  which  he  car- 
ried, one  of  the  two  mentioned  in  Luke  22,  o8.  The  word  translated 
sword  is  not  the  classical  expression,  but  one  used  in  Homer  to  denote 
the  knife  Avorn  by  his  heroes  with  the  sword,  and  used  to  slaughter 
animals.  In  later  Greek,  it  was  applied  to  military  weapons,  first  to 
certain  new  varieties  or  forms,  and  then  in  the  ISTew  Testament  to  swords 
in  general.  Smote,  struck,  wounded,  the  same  Greek  word  being  used 
by  John  (18, 10.) 

48.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  nnto  them,  Are  ye 
come  out  as  against  a  tliief,  with  swords  and  (with)  staves 
to  take  me  ? 

Ansioering  their  thoughts  or  actions  (see  above,  on  9,  5.  10,  24.  12, 
35.)  To  them,  the  whole  crowd,  but  especially  the  officers  who  came 
with  a  commission  to  arrest  him  and  to  represent  the  national  authori- 
ties. The  last  clause  may  be  also  read  without  interrogation.  Ye  are 
come  out,  which  appears  to  be  more  natural.  As  against  a  thief,  or 
robher,  as  the  Greek  word  properly  denotes,  and  the  context  here  re- 
quires, since  such  a  posse  would  not  be  required  for  the  detection  or 
pursuit  of  a  mere  thief,  in  the  modern  and  restricted  sense  of  the  ex- 
pression (see  above,  on  11, 17.)  Swords  and  staves,  or  Jcnives  and  sticks, 
as  in  V.  43,  the  former  phrase  suggesting  the  idea  of  armed  officers, 
civil  and  military,  and  the  latter  that  of  a  promiscuous  rabble  armed 
with  clubs  or  bludgeons  and  such  other  weapons  as  could  be  provided 
at  a  moment's  warning.  To  taTce  (arrest)  me,  not  the  verb  employed 
in  vs.  44.  46,  but  one  supposed  to  signify  the  act  of  seizing  with  both 
hands,  and  frequently  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  legal  appre- 
hension or  arre.st.  (Besides  the  parallels.  Matt.  26.55.  Luke  22,54. 
John  18,12,  see  Acts  1,16.  12,3.  23,27.  26,21.)  The  reproach  im- 
plied in  these  words,  whether  construed  interrogatively  or  affirmatively, 
is  that  they  should  now  come  out  against  him  as  a  formidable  public 
enem}--,  after  letting  slip  so  many  oj)portunities  of  safe  and  quiet  seizure, 
as  particularly  mentioned  in  the  next  verse. 

49.  I  was  daily  with  yon  in  the  temple,  teaching,  and 
ye  took  me  not ;  but  the  scriptures  must  be  fulfilled. 

Daily,  day  by  day,  not  all  day,  but  from  day  to  da}^,  referring  no 
doubt  chiefly  to  the  days  immediately  preceding,  though  possibly  not 
without  allusion  to  his  former  visits.  With  you,  a  much  stronger 
phrase  in  Greek,  meaning  at  you,  close  to  you,  in  intimate  proximity 
and  contact  with  you  (see  above,  on  1,  33.  2,  2.  4,  1.  5, 11.  22.  6,  3.  9. 
19.  11, 1.  4.)  In  the  temple,  i.  e.  its  area  or  courts,  within  the  sacred 
enclosure  (.^ee  above,  on  11,11.15.16.27.  13,1.3)  Teaching,  not 
merely  pro^eut  as  nn  idler  or  a  lookor-on,  but  publicly  engaged  in  my 
ollicial  Avork,  and  therelbic  all  the  mure  accessible,  both  in  llie  way  of 


MARK  14,  49.  50.  51.  305 

accusation  and  of  seizure.  Aiid  ye  took  me  not,  or  did  not  seize  me  (see 
above,  on  vs.  44. 4G),  as  ye  might  have  done  with  so  much  ease  and 
safety.  The  force  of  this  rebuke  may  seem  to  be  impaired  by  the  fact, 
that  the  rulers  of  the  Jews  had  been  deterred  by  the  fear  of  popular 
resistance,  of  which  there  now  seemed  to  be  no  longer  any  danger.  But 
our  Saviour  may  have  reference  to  this  very  change,  as  his  words  were 
not  addressed  to  the  rulers,  but  to  their  representatives,  official  and 
popular.  The  translation  of  the  last  clause  has  effaced  a  striking  trait 
of  the  original,  an  instance  of  the  figure  called  aposiopesis,  in  which  the 
conclusion  is  suppressed  or  left  to  be  supplied  by  those  who  read  or 
hear  the  sentence  (see  above,  on  7, 11.)  The  literal  translation  is, 
hut  that  the  scrijJtures  might  he  fulfilled — and  there  he  stops  abruptly. 
Some  supply,  '  now  seize  me  ! '  which  however  would  require  a  different 
verbal  form  before  it ;  others,  '  ye  are  now  allowed  to  take  me,'  which 
is  open  to  the  same  objection.  The  formula  most  readily  suggested  and 
agreeable  to  usage  (compare  Matt.  1,  22.  21,  4.  26,  56.)  is,  all  this  comes 
to  pass  (or  hai^'pens'),  but  nothing  need  be  formally  supplied,  the  sen- 
tence being  left  intentionally  incomplete  in  form,  although  the  sense  is 
doubtless  that  expressed  in  the  translation. 

50.  Aiul  tliey  all  forsook  liim  and  fled. 

And  leaving  him,  to  himself  and  to  his  enemies,  the  verb  employed 
above  in  v.  6  and  in  13,  2.  34,  and  other  places  there  referred  to.  All 
fled,  a  clear  case  of  the  strongest  universal  term  being  qualified  and 
restricted  bv  the  context,  as  it  can  onlv  mean  all  his  followers  or  disci- 
pies,  as  predicted  in  v.  27,  but  repudiated  as  incredible  by  those  who 
now  fulfilled  it  by  their  own  free  actions.  This  change  is  far  from 
being  inconsistent  with  experience  jmd  human  nature,  or,  as  the  Ger- 
mans say,  unpsychological.  The  very  rashness  of  the  promise  (v.  31), 
and  of  the  impotent  attempt  at  self-defence  when  it  was  hopeless  (v. 
47),  might  have  served  as  premonitions  of  the  shameful  dereliction 
here  recorded.  To  the  objection  sometimes  made,  that  so  explicit  a 
prediction  must  defeat  its  own  fulfilment,  the  reply  is,  that  such  prophe- 
cies are  uttered  only  when  the  issue  is  too  certain  to  be  thus  prevented, 
as  in  the  case  of  Judas  (Matt.  26,  25.  John  13,  27)  and  Peter  (see 
above,  on  v.  30.)  It  may  even  be  admitted,  in  a  certain  sense,  that  the 
i:»rophecy  contributed  to  its  own  fulfilment,  by  enfeebling  or  destrojang 
the  factitious  courage,  which  existed  while  the  danger  was  still  future 
or  remote. 

51.  52.  And  there  followed  him  a  certain  young  man, 
having  a  linen  cloth  cast  abont  (his)  naked  (body) ;  and 
the  young  men  laid  hold  on  him,  and  he  left  the  linen 
cloth,  and  fled  from  them  naked. 

This  incident,  recorded  only  here,  has  occasioned  much  discussion, 
not  because  of  its  intrinsic  moment,  or  of  any  light  thrown  by  it  on  the 
history,  but  simply  from  the  difficulty  of  determining  why  it  was  iu- 


396  MARK  14,  52.  53. 

serted.  Of  the  various  conjectures  upon  this  point,  one  of  which  sup- 
poses the  young  man  to  have  been  John,  another  James,  another  some 
one  from  the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  another  some  one  from  the  house 
in  Jerusalem  which  they  had  latel}^  left,  there  seem  to  be  only  two  that 
are  not  perfectly  gratuitous.  The  first  is,  that  the  3'oung  man  was  the 
author  of  this  gospel,  who  has  then  preserved  a  vivid  reminiscence  of 
his  own,  connected  with  the  scenes  of  that  night  long  to  be  remem- 
bered, yet  with  characteristic  modesty  suppressed  his  name.  This, 
though  merely  a  conjecture,  is  intrinsicallj'-  credible  and  partially  cor- 
roborated by  the  fact  that  Mark,  whose  name  a  uniform  tradition  has 
connected  with  this  gospel,  was  a  young  man  living  with  his  mother  in 
Jerusalem  a  few  years  later  (Acts  12, 12),  and  not  improbably  at  this 
time  also.  This  much  at  least  may  be  asserted  with  some  confidence, 
that  if  the  incident  occurred  to  any  person  otherwise  well  known,  it 
was  no  doubt  the  evangelist  himself.  The  remaining  supposition  is, 
that  the  youth  who  thus  escaped  was  entirely  unknown  and  unimpor- 
tant, and  that  the  incident  itself  is  mentioned,  only  as  a  vivid  trait  in 
the  recollections  of  some  one  who  witnessed  the  whole  scene,  perhaps 
Peter,  whom  another  old  and  uniform  tradition  represents  as  having  in- 
fluenced in  some  way  the  production  of  this  gospel,  and  contributed 
some  of  its  most  valuable  matter.  A  certain  one,  the  same  expression 
as  in  V.  47,  and  here  too  meaning  a  single  insulated  individual.  Fol- 
loicecl  Jiim  (Jesus),  either  as  a  friend,  or  out  of  curiosit}-,  aroused  by 
the  nocturnal  tumult.  A  linen  cloth,  in  Greek  a  single  word,  denoting 
the  material  and  not  the  shape,  which  ma}^  have  been  either  that  of  a 
sheet  under  which  he  was  sleeping,  or  of  a  loose  garment  worn  at  night, 
in  either  case  implying  that  he  was  undressed  and  probably  just  risen 
out  of  bed.  Cast  about,  in  the  original,  agrees  not  with  the  garment 
but  the  man,  and  means  that  he  was  wrapped  or  mufiied  in  it,  on 
(his)  nalced  (body.)  The  young  men  (if  genuine)  may  mean  the  offi- 
cers or  soldiers,  or  more  probably  than  either,  the  disorderly  j^oung 
men  who  are  found  in  every  mob,  and  who  delight  in  acts  of  wanton 
violence.  But  the  latest  critics  follow  some  of  the  most  ancient  manu- 
scripts and  versions  in  expunging  these  words  {the  young  men)  and 
leaving  the  verb  perfectly  indefinite  {they  seize  him.) 

53.  And  tliey  led  Jesns  away  to  the  Jjigh  priest :  and 
with  him  were  assembled  all  the  chief  priests  and  the 
elders  and  the  scribes. 

Led  away,  from  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  where  he  was  arrested, 
and  across  the  brook  or  valley  of  the  Kedron,  into  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
again.  To  the  High  Priest,  i.  e.  to  his  residence,  and  into  his  imme- 
diate presence.  Mark  takes  no  notice  of  the  confusion  then  existing  in 
the  office  of  High  Priest,  occasioned  by  the  arbitrary  interference  of  the 
Romans,  so  that  thei-e  were  seveial  High  Priests  alive  at  one  time,  i.  e. 
several  wlio  Imd  nctnally  exorcised  tlie  office,  though  Ihe  law  of  Moses 
recognized  but  one,  and  tliat  one  the  hereditary  representative  of  Aaron. 
This  appears  to  have  been  Annas,  who  was  therefore  probably  re 


MAEK  14,  53.  54.  397 

garded  by  the  strict  Jews  as  the  legitimate  incumbent ;  but  having 
been  displaced  by  the  Romans,  and  deprived  of  all  direct  official  power, 
he  appears  to  have  secured  the  nomination  of  his  own  son  and  son-in- 
law,  as  his  successors,  thereby  maintaining  indirectly  his  own  influence, 
and  probably  the  title  too  in  common  parlance,  which  accounts  for 
Luke's  mentioning  both  Annas  and  Caiaphas  as  High  Priests  at  the 
same  time  (Luke  3,  2),  and  for  John's  saying  here  that  the}^  brought 
him  first  to  Annas,  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  who  was  High  Priest 
that  year  (John  18,  13),  which  does  not  mean  that  it  was  now  a  yearly 
ofiice,  even  under  Roman  domination,  but  is  merely  an  allusion  to  the 
frequency  with  which  the  incumbents  were  displaced  by  the  authorities. 
John  adds  (18,  24)  that  Annas  sent  him  bound  to  Caiaphas,  before 
whom  he  was  formally  arraigned.  With  greater  brevity,  but  equal 
truth,  Mark  speaks  of  one  High  Priest  and  one  appearance  of  our  Lord, 
before  him.  And  there  come  together  icith  him,  i.  e.  with  Jesus  into 
the  High  Priest's  presence,  or  tJiei'e  come  togetJier  to  Mm^  i.  e.  to  the 
High  Priest  himself,  wdiich  last  is  the  construction  now  preferred. 
Tlie  chief  ijriests.  scriJjes,  and  elders,  are  again  distinctly  named  (see 
above,  on  v.  43)  as  the  three  great  orders  or  estates,  composing  the 
synedrion  or  sanhedrim,  which  represented  the  whole  church  and  na- 
tion, and  now,  as  soon  it  was  day  (Luke  22,  6G).  convened  at  the  resi- 
dence of  Caiaphas,  to  deliberate  and  act  upon  the  case  of  Jesus. 

54.  And  Peter  followed  him  afar  off,  even  into  the 
palace  of  the  high  priest ;  and  he  sat  with  the  servants, 
and  warmed  himself  at  the  lire. 

However  unexpected  the  fact  here  recorded,  there  is  probably  no 
reader  who,  as  soon  as  it  is  stated,  does  not  feel  it  to  be  perfectly  in 
keeping  with  what  he  knows  already  of  the  character  of  Peter,  who 
would  scarcely  seem  to  be  himself  if  he  continued  in  concealment,  and 
whose  reappearance  on  the  scene,  and  subsequent  performance  there, 
exhibit  just  the  strength  and  weakness  which  together  constitute  the 
native  temper  of  this  great  apostle.  Without  sa3^ing  how  he  gained  ad- 
mission, which  is  afterwards  explained  by  John  (18, 15),  Mark  simply 
states  that  Peter  followed /"rom  afar  (or  from  a  distance,  see  above,  on 
5,  6.  8,  3.  11, 13),  imiDl3dng  that  at  first  he  had  retreated  with  the  rest, 
but  now  ventured  to  approach  the  place  of  trial,  under  the  influence  no 
doubt  of  true  affection  for  his  master,  and  not  of  a  mere  idle  curiosity 
which  would  scarcely  have  induced  him  to  incur  such  hazard  for  its 
gratification.  IJren  into  answers  to  three  particles  in  Greek,  the  first 
of  which  (eo)?)  means  unto,  up  to,  or  as  far  as  ;  the  second  (eVco)  inside 
or  within;  the  third  (etj)  into;  an  unusual  accumulation  of  such 
words,  suggesting  that  his  going  so  far  was  a  strange  and  unexpected 
thing.  The  palace,  literally,  hall  or  court,  and  probably  denoting  not 
the  whole  house  but  a  part  of  it.  The  idea  of  a  palace,  i.  e.  of  a  princely 
mansion,  which  tradition  has  attached  to  this  word,  here  and  in  the 
parallels  (Matt.  20,  58.  Luke  22,55.  John  18,  15),  appears  to  have  no 
adequate  foundation  in  the  usage  either  of  the  word  or  of  the  office,  as 


398  MARK  14.  54.  55. 

we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  High  Priests  at  any  time  were 
lodged  in  royal  style,  but  least  of  all  at  this  time,  when  the  tenure  of 
their  place  was  so  precarious,  and  any  such  display  would  probably 
excite  the  jealousy  of  Roman  power.  There  is  no  objection  to  the 
word,  however,  in  the  simple  sense  of  an  official  residence,  as  the 
bishops'  palaces  in  England  are  so  called  without  necessarily  implying 
either  magnitude  or  splendor.  Sat^  was  sitting,  ^cith  the  servants^  not 
mere  domestics  but  more  probably  the  officers,  as  the  word  is  rendered 
in  John  7, 32.  and  often  in  that  gospel,  i.  e.  the  executive  or  ministerial 
agents  of  the  national  authorities.  And  loarming  himself  at  the  fire, 
literally,  the  light,  which  they  had  kindled,  as  it  was  a  cold  night 
(John  18, 18),  probably  according  to  the  custom  of  the  east,  in  the 
centre  of  the  hall  or  open  court  already  mentioned.  This  description  is  so 
natural  and  lifelike,  jQt  so  little  likely  to  occur  to  a  fictitious  or  even 
to  a  later  writer,  that  it  seems  to  vouch  for  the  contemporary  origin 
of  this  whole  record. 

55.  AdcI  the  clilef  priests  and  all  the  council  sought 
for  witness  against  Jesus,  to  put  him  to  death,  and  found 
none. 

Here  begins  the  judicial  process  (falsely  so  called)  by  which  the 
Messiah,  whose  advent  Israel  had  expected  for  ages,  and  for  whose 
sake  the  theocracy  existed,  was  to  be  denied  and  put  to  death  as  an  im- 
postor. The  national  character  of  the  proceeding  is  again  suggested  by 
the  mention  of  the  chief  'priests  and  the  whole  synedrium  (or  council), 
this  collective  designation  being  substituted  for  the  scribes  and 
elders,  who  are  usually  mentioned  with  the  chief  priests  as  composing 
it.  (See  above,  on  vs.  1.  10.  43.  53.)  There  is  something  in  the  very 
variation  of  the  parallel  accounts,  in  their  description  of  this  body, 
that  appears  to  be  significant.  While  Mark  names  only  the  chief 
priests  distinctly,  comprehending  both  the  other  orders  under  the 
generic  title,  and  Matthew  distinguishes  the  elders  also,  leaving  the 
scribes  to  be  included  under  the  residuary  phrase,  Luke  on  the  other 
hand  particulary  mentions  the  chief  priests  and  scribes,  but  instead  of 
elders  uses  the  collective  term  of  kindred  origin,  the  2^resl)ytery  (elder- 
ship or  senate)  of  the  pcoj^tle  (Luke  22,  G3.)  In  this  variety  of 
forms,  to  all  but  sceptics  less  suspicious  than  exact  resemblance,  the 
evangelists  convey  the  one  idea,  that  this  legal  persecution  was  the 
work,  not  of  private  prosecutors,  but  of  public  representatives  and 
rulers.  Sought  for  witness  (i.  e.  testimony,  evidence)  against  Jesus,  to 
(with  a  view  or  in  order  to)  kill  him  (or  put  him  to  death).  The  ne- 
cessity of  this  preliminary  measure  arose  from  the  legal  requisition  oi 
two  witnesses  in  every  trial  for  a  capital  offence  (see  Deut.  17,  6.  7. 
19, 15.  Heb.  10,  28,  and  compare  Matt.  18,  16.  1  Tim.  5,  19.  Rev.  11, 
3),  which  seems  to  have  been  construed  strictly  as  requiring  double 
testimony  to  the  same  act.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  to  find  two 
who  had  been  present  at  the  same  or  a  precisely  similar  offence, 
whatever  it  might  be.     The  difficulty,  then,  was  not  that  they  found 


MARK  14,  55.  50.  57.  399 


none^  as  the  English  Bible  renders  it,  but,  as  the  Greek  words  literally 
mean,  tJiey  did  not  find  (what  they  were  seeking),  i.  e.  probably  two 
witnesses  to  one  and  the  same  act.  It  would  have  been  strange  indeed 
if  no  one  could  be  found  to  testify  at  all ;  but  it  was  not  strange  that 
they  found  it  hard  to  obtain  two  concurrent  witnesses  to  one  and  the 
same  thing.  The  only  other  sense  in  which  it  could  be  absolutely  said 
that  they  found  none^  is  that  although  they  could  easily  prove  many 
acts  and  words  of  Christ,  they  did  not  amount  to  a  capital  offence,  so 
that  in  reference  to  their  object,  which  was  to  destroy  him,  they  may 
be  said  to  \\SL\e  found  none. 

56.  For  many  bare  false  witness  against  him,  but  tlieir 
witness  agreed  not  together. 

That  it  was  not  the  mere  want  of  witnesses  that  hindered  their  pro- 
ceedings, is  now  stated  most  distinctly,  for  many  hare  false  witness 
against  Mm.  This  does  not  necessarily^  denote  a  sheer  invention,  or 
even  a  deliberate  perversion  of  the  facts  alleged,  but  merely  their  objec- 
tive untruth,  whether  they  believed  them  to  be  true  or  not.  The  gross 
misapprehension  of  our  Saviour's  words  and  actions,  into  which  the 
Jews  continually  fell,  and  from  which  his  own  disciples  were  not  wholly 
free,  would,  even  in  the  absence  of  malignant  purpose,  be  enough  to 
falsify  their  testimony ;  how  much  more  when  such  a  purpose  did  exist 
and  operate,  whether  in  a  great  or  small  degree.  The  literal  transla- 
tion of  the  last  clause  is,  and  equal  the  testimonies  icere  not.  Some 
suppose  equal  to  mean  adequate,  sufficient  for  their  purpose,  which 
affords  a  good  sense  but  is  hardly  justified  by  usage.  Others  under- 
stand it  to  mean  even.,  uniform,  harmonious,  and  with  the  negative,  in- 
consistent, contradictory.  This  also  gives  a  good  sense,  but  the  fact 
implied  is  hardly  probable,  to  wit,  that  all  the  witnesses  directly  con- 
tradicted one  another.  Free  from  both  these  objections  is  the  expla- 
nation which  supposes  equal  to  have  reference  to  the  legal  requisition  of 
two  concurrent  witnesses  to  one  fact,  which  it  might  not  be  so  easy  to 
obtain  as  a  multitude  of  independent  witnesses  to  different  words  or 
actions. 

57.  And  tliere  arose  certain,  and  bare  false  A\itness 
against  him,  saying, 

At  length  they  seemed  to  have  attained  their  purpose,  having  met 
with  a  plurality  of  witnesses  to  one  remarkable  expression  of  the 
Saviour.  And  certain  (i.  e.  some)  arising.,  i.  e.  coming  forward,  mak- 
ing their  appearance,  or  literally  standing  up  before  those  who  ex- 
amined them.  The  particular  charge  here  alleged  against  him  may  ap- 
pear to  be  a  strange  one  in  comparison  with  many  others  which  they 
might  have  urged.  And  so  it  would  be,  if  they  had  selected  it  themselves 
as  the  ground  of  accusaMon,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  forced  upon  them 
as  the  only  charge  supported  by  two  witnesses,  with  even  the  appear- 
ance of  consistency,  and  this  proved  only  an  appearance.     The  charge 


400  MARK  14,  57-00. 

was  false,  not  because  Christ  had  never  spoken  such  words,  for  wo  have 
them  upon  record,  but  because  it  transformed  into  a  threat  what  he  had 
uttered  as  a  promise,  or  offered  to  do  if  they  themselves  destroyed  the 
temple,  and  because  they  wholly  disregarded  his  allusion  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  sanctuary  under  the  Old  Testament,  as  a  sj^mbol  of  God's 
presence  and  inhabitation,  to  be  superseded  by  the  advent  of  the  ^Mes- 
siah. 

58.  "We  heard  liini  say,  I  will  destroy  tliis  temple  that 
is  made  with  hands,  and  within  three  days  I  will  build 
another  made  without  hands. 

We  heard  Mm  saying^  probabl}^  on  the  occasion  mentioned  by  John 
(2,  18-21),  and  if  so  at  the  very  opening  of  his  ministry,  and  several 
3^ears  before  the  accusation.  Destroy,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above 
in  13,  2,  and  there  explained.  This  temple,  not  the  word  which  has 
occurred  so  frequently  before  (11,11.15.16.27.  12,35.  13,1.3.  14, 
49),  but  one  which  denotes  tlie  sacred  edifice,  the  sanctuar}'.  or  temple 
properl3"  so  called.  The  form  of  the  original  is  here  peculiarl}^  expres- 
sive, although  foreign  from  our  idiom,  the  temple— tliis — the  handmade. 
Made  tcithout  hands  is  in  Greek  a  single  word,  the  same  that  occurs 
just  before  but  with  a  negative  particle  prefixed.  Within,  literally, 
through,  i.  e.  during,  in  the  course.  I  icill  huiUl  stands  emphatically 
at  the  close  of  the  original  sentence. 

59.  But  neither  so  did  their  witness  agree  together. 

But  neither  so,  literally,  and  not  even  so  (or  thus),  i.  e.  according  to 
the  statement  made  in  the  preceding  verse.  Was  their  testimony  equal, 
the  same  expression  that  occurs  in  the  last  clause  of  v.  56,  and  admit- 
ting of  the  same  variety  of  explanation,  but  most  probably  denoting, 
here  as  there,  that  they  could  not  succeed  in  finding  two  concurrent 
witnesses  to  this  one  speech  of  Christ,  or  any  other  of  his  words  and  ac- 
tions, which  could  possibly  be  made  the  ground  of  a  specific  charge 
against  him.  In  the  present  instance,  as  the  witnesses  all  varied  from 
the  truth,  they  naturally  varied  from  each  other,  so  that  no  two 
were  so  far  agreed  as  to  satisfy  the  requisitions  of  the  laAV.  (See  above^ 
on  V.  55.) 

GO.  And  the  high  priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and 
asked  Jesus,  saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing  ?  what  (is  it 
which)  these  witness  against  thee? 

And  arising,  standing  up,  in  the  midst,  i.  e.  within  the  body  of  the 
council,  and,  as  some  understand  it,  in  the  centre  of  the  semicircle 
formed  by  the  assembly  according  to  an  old  tradition  of  the  Jews 
fliomselves.  Into  the  midst  is  the  exact  ti-anslntion,  which  a]»parcntly 
implies  a  previous  movement  of  the  high  priest  from  his  seat  to  some 
conspicuous  position  fur   the  piupose  of  addressing  him.      All   this 


MAKK   H  GO.  01.  401 

seems  to  presuppose  a  formal  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  to  show 
that  the  inquiry  mentioned  in  v.  55  was  not  a  private  or  prehminary 
one,  but  the  commencement  of  the  public  process,  as  appears  indeed 
from  its  being  there  ascribed  to  the  whole  body.  As  the  witnesses  did 
not  agree  together,  the  accused  was  not  obliged  to  answer  or  defend 
himself,  and  therefore  by  his  silence  only  exercised  the  right  belonging 
to  the  humblest  Jew  according  to  the  law  of  INloses.  At  the  same 
time,  he  knew  well  that  all  defence  would  be  entirely  unavailing  (Luke 
22,  67.  68),  and  besides  had  no  desire  to  be  acquitted  by  them. 
Ansicerest  tliou  nothing  ?  is  in  Greek  still  stronger  from  the  double 
negative  {ovk  ovSeV),  which  cannot  be  expressed  in  English  without 
changing  the  whole  sense  (see  above,  on  3,  27.  5,  37.  6,  5.  12, 14.) 
The  meaning  of  the  question  may  be  either, '  hast  thou  nothing  to  reply, 
dost  thou  acknowledge  what  they  say  ?  '  or  '  wilt  thou  not  reply  ?  dost 
thou  treat  the  testimon}^  with  contempt  ? '  The  latter  agrees  better 
with  the  following  question,  icliat  do  these  testify  against  thee?  i.  e.  is 
it  true  or  false?  and  if  true,  how  dost  thou  explain  it,  or  justify  thy 
conduct  ?  This  was  an  attempt  to  make  the  prisoner  supply  the  want 
of  testimony  by  his  own  confession,  a  proceeding  utterly  abhorrent  to 
the  spirit  and  the  practice  of  the  English  law,  though  familiar  to  the 
codes  and  courts  of  other  nations,  both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times. 

61.  But  lie  held  liis  peace,  and  answered  nothing. 
Again  tlie  high  priest  asked  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Art 
thou  the  Christ,  \h.Q  Son  of  the  Blessed  ? 

As  our  Lord  persisted  in  refusing  all  reply  to  these  vexatious  ques- 
tions, on  a  charge  not  only  ftilse  but  unsupported  even  by  false  wit- 
nesses, the  high  priest  suddenly  dismisses  that  complaint  as  unavail- 
ing, and  propounds  to  him  the  real  question  now  at  issue.  It  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  Mark's  statement,  although  not  included  in 
it,  that  this  question  was  put,  not  in  the  same  way  with  those  before  it, 
but  in  the  solemn  form  of  a  judicial  adjuration,  or  an  oath  by  the  liv- 
ing God,  Jehovah,  as  distinguished  from  all  false  gods  (Matt.  2G,  63.) 
Such  an  oath  the  priests  were  empowered  to  administer  (Num.  5,  19), 
and  such  an  oath  our  Lord  did  not  refuse  when  lawfully  propounded, 
thus  explaining  by  his  own  act  the  true  meaning  of  his  precept.  Swear 
not  at  all  (Matt.  5,  34),  as  not  forbidding  solemn  and  regular  judicial 
oaths.  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Messiah?  (see  above,  on  1,1.  8,29. 
9,  41.  12,  35.  13,  21.)  The  Son  of  the  Blessed,  i.  e.  of  the  Blessed  God, 
an  epithet  which  frequently  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  has  been 
disputed  whether  this  is  a  mere  paraphrase  or  repetition  of  the  first 
clause,  or  an  independent  question.  In  the  one  case  the  meaning  is, 
'Art  thou  the  Messiah,  whom  we  know  to  be  the  Son  of  God?'  In 
the  other  case,  'Dost  thou  claim  to  be,  not  only  the  Messiah,  but  the 
Son  of  God  ?  '  The  former  is  the  natural  and  obvious  construction,  and 
is  defended  on  the  ground  that,  as  the  JNIessiah  was  called  the  Son  of 
Man  on  the  authority  of  Dan.  7,  13,  so  he  was  likewise  called  the  Son 
of  God  on  the  authority  of  Ps.  2,  7,  both  which  passages  were  car- 


402  M  ARK  14,  CI.  62.  63. 

tainly  regarded  by  the  ancient  Jews  as  Messianic  prophecies.  That 
the  higher  title  was  so  used  in  the  time  of  Christ,  is  argued  from  such 
passages  as  John  1,  49.  3, 17.  36.  5,  25.  27.  9,  35.  11,  27.  20,  31.  Acts 
9,  20.  The  only  reason  for  a  different  opinion  is  the  supposed  defec- 
tion of  the  Jews  from  the  doctrine  of  Zvlessiah's  deity,  implied  in  our 
Lord's  question  in  relation  to  the  110th  Psalm  (see  above,  on  12,  35-37.) 
But  all  the  known  facts  may  be  harmonized  by  simply  assuming 
that  Son  of  God  was  still  a  current  name  of  the  Messiah,  though  its 
meaning  had  been  lowered  and  extenuated.  The  question  still  recurs, 
however,  whether  the  high  priest  intended  merely  to  inquire  if  he 
claimed  to  be  the  Christ,  employing  two  familiar  Messianic  titles,  or 
whether  he  designed  to  ask  if  he  claimed  also  to  be  a  divine  person. 
The  latter  is  more  probable,  because  the  second  title  would  be  other- 
wise superfluous  ;  because  the  Saviour  had  already  been  accused  of  call- 
ing God  his  father  and  of  thereby  making  himself  God  (John  5.  18)  ; 
and  because  his  answer  to  the  question  was  treated  as  blasphemy,  for 
which  a  mere  assumption  of  the  Messianic  oflBce  would  have  furnished 
no  colourable  ground  or  pretext. 

62.  And  Jesus  said,  I  am,  and  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of 
Man,  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven. 

Kot  only  because  solemnly  enjoined  in  due  form  of  law,  but  also 
because  thereby  furnished  with  a  public  opportunity  of  making  known 
his  claims,  our  Lord  now  answers  with  sublime  conciseness  and  sim- 
plicity, I  AM.  i.  e.  I  am  both  the  Christ  and  the  Son  of  the  Blessed,  per- 
haps not  without  allusion  to  the  significant  divine  name  once  revealed 
to  Moses  (see  above,  on  6,  50,  and  compare  Ex.  3, 14.)  To  this  cate- 
gorical and  unambiguous  response,  he  adds  what  may  seem  to  be  a  mere 
prediction,  but  is  also  both  an  explanation  and  a  pledge  or  confirmation 
of  the  foregoing  answer.  '  Yes,  1  am  the  Son  of  God,  but  no  less  really 
the  Son  of  ^lan.  and  you  shall  one  day  see  the  very  form  now  arraigned 
and  about  to  be  maltreated  in  your  presence,  no  longer  as  the  form  of 
a  servant,  but  of  a  king  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  power,  as  a  sharer 
in  the  honours  of  omnipotence,  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.' 
(See  above,  on  13,  20.) 

63.  Then  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes,  and  saith, 
What  need  we  anv  further  witnesses? 

This  bold  and  perhaps  unexpected  avowal  of  his  Messianic  claims, 
in  their  most  cxplicic  and  otl'cnsive  form,  was  eagerly  caught  at  by  the 
high  priest,  as  suppl3'ing  the  deficiency  of  proof  from  other  quarters, 
and  enabling  them  out  of  his  own  mouth  to  condemn  him.  He  pro- 
ceeds, therefore,  to  rend  (or  tear  open  and  apart)  his  clothes,  not  the 
loose  outer  dress  (see  above,  on  5,  27.  6,  50.  10,  50.  13, 10),  but  the 
tunic  or  under-garment,  which,  according  to  Mamionides,  were  both 
(or  all)  to  be  subjected  to  this  process.     The  act  itself  was  not  a  sign 


MARK  14,  63.  64.  65.  403 


of  personal  mourning,  which  as  such  was  not  permitted  to  the  high 
priest  (Lev.  10,  6),  but  of  official  detestation  and  abhorrence  at  the 
blaspheni}'-  supposed  to  have  been  uttered.  Why  yet  (or  still)  have  ice 
need  of  witnesses,  1  the  difficulty  under  which  the  cause  had  laboured, 
and  by  which  it  would  probably  have  been  defeated,  if  our  Lord  had 
not  spontaneously  supplied  what  was  wanting  by  his  own  confession. 

64.  Ye  have  heard  the  bLasphem j ;  what  think  ye  ? 
And  they  all  condemned  him  to  be  guilty  of  death. 

Ye  heard,  the  Masi^hemy  (just  uttered),  not  the  bare  claim  to  pro- 
phetic honours,  or  even  to  those  of  the  Messiah  considered  as  a  mere  man, 
which  could  not  have  been  described  as  blasphemy,  but  the  distinct  asser- 
tion that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  therefore,  as  the  Jews  correctly  un- 
derstood it,  a  partaker  of  the  divine  essence.  (See  the  same  interpretation 
of  his  language,  and  the  same  charge  founded  on  it  in  a  more  popular  in- 
formal way,  John  10,  30-36.)  What  thinlc  ye?  literally,  ichat  af pears 
to  you^  or  Uoio  does  it  appear  to  you  ?  This  is  not  a  colloquial  demand 
for  their  opinion,  but  most  probably  the  customary  form  of  taking  votes 
or  putting  questions  in  the  Sanhedrim,  and  therefore  followed  by  an 
unanimous  decision  of  the  body.  Guilty  of  death,  i.  e.  justly  liable, 
obnoxious,  or  exposed  to  it.  A7e  know  of  one  exception  to  this  state- 
ment (see  below,  on  15,  43)  ;  but  the  dissenting  senator  was  probably 
not  present  at  this  meeting. 

65.  And  some  began  to  spit  on  him,  and  to  cover  his 
ftice,  and  to  buffet  him,  and  to  say  unto  him.  Prophesy ; 
and  tlie  servants  did  strike  him  with  the  palms  of  their 
hands. 

The  sentence  having  been  pronounced,  its  execution  was  partially 
forestalled  by  cruel  and  unmanly  treatment  of  their  prisoner.  This 
might  seem  from  the  concise  account  of  iMark  and  Matthew  (26,  67)  to 
have  proceeded  from  the  senators  themselves,  which  in  itself  is  credible 
enough,  as  we  may  learn  from  the  subsequent  experience  of  Stephen 
(Acts  7,  54.  57)  and  Paul  (Acts  23,  2)  before  the  same  tribunal.  We 
find,  however,  conduct  of  the  same  kind^  although  not  precisely  at  the 
same  time,  ascribed  by  Luke  (22,  63)  to  those  who  held  Jesus,  i.  e.  to 
the  officers  and  soldiers  who  had  charge  of  him,  and  these  may  pos- 
sibly have  been  the  actors  in  this  shameful  scene,  both  before  and  after 
his  arraignment.  Even  then,  however,  such  maltreatment  would  not 
have  been  possible  without  the  permission  or  connivance  of  the  San- 
hedrim itself  The  insults  were  particularly  aimed  at  his  pretensions 
to  prophetic  inspiration,  now  supposed  to  be  exploded  and  declared  in- 
valid by  the  highest  theocratical  authority.  And  some  'began  to  sprit 
upon  him,  universally  regarded  as  the  strongest  and  the  grossest  indi- 
cation of  contemptuous  abhorrence.  And  to  cover  his  face,  literally, 
cover  it  around,  i.  e.  completely,  so  as  to  prevent  his  seeing.  Prophesy, 
not  in  the  restricted  modern  sense  of  foretelling  something  future,  but 


404  M  A  R  K  14,  65.  66. 

in  the  primary  and  wide  sense  of  speaking  by  inspiration  or  under  a 
special  divine  influence.  The  demand  may  have  been  made  in  this 
vague  form,  but  also  in  the  shape  of  more  specific  taunts,  one  of  which 
has  been  preserved  by  Matthew  (26,  68),  and  of  course  regarded  by 
the  sceptics  as  a  discrepant  tradition.  The  express  mention  of  the 
servants  (i.  e.  officers,  see  above,  on  v.  54)  in  the  last  clause  seems  to 
favour  the  opinion  that  the  acts  described  in  the  first,  disgraceful  as 
they  are,  were  those  of  their  superiors  in  rank  and  station.  The  rest 
of  this  clause  is  a  periphrastic  version  of  a  rare  and  doubtful  phrase 
which  literally  means,  they  tlireio  him  (or  tlireic  at  Mm)  with  slaps, 
i.  e.  struck  him  with  the  open  hand;  but  some  explain  the  last  word  to 
mean  strokes  with  a  rod.  In  either  case,  the  essential  fact  remains  the 
same,  to  wit,  their  brutal  violation  of  that  sacred  person  by  blows  as 
lawless  as  thev  were  inhuman. 

QQ.  67.  And  as  Peter  was  beneatli  in  the  palace,  there 
Cometh  one  of  the  maids  of  the  high  priest ;  and  when  she 
saw  Peter  Avarming  himself,  she  looked  npon  him,  and 
said.  And  thou  also  wast  with  Jesus  of  Xazareth. 

During  the  intervals  of  these  proceedings,  Christ's  prediction  with 
respect  to  Peter  had  been  lamentably  verified.  The  several  steps  of 
his  denial,  though  protracted  through  the  night,  and  parallel  to  those 
of  our  Lord's  examination,  are  here  put  together  so  as  to  form  one  con- 
nected narrative.  The  confusion  and  obscurity  confessedly  belonging 
to  this  subject  are  precisely  such  as  might  have  been  expected  a  jyriori 
from  the  actual  confusion  of  the  scenes  described,  the  multiphcity  of  ac- 
tors, the  incessant  movement  to  and  fro.  and  the  consequent  variety  of 
forms  in  which  the  story  might  be  told  with  equal  truth,  according  to 
the  few  facts  chosen  out  of  many  by  the  several  historians.  While  all 
agree  in  three  distinct  denials  on  the  part  of  Peter,  none  of  them  assert 
that  there  were  only  three  demands  or  accusations,  a  restriction  which 
would  really  have  been  suspicious  and  improbable,  considering  how 
many  were  arrayed  against  him.  By  assuming  what  is  constantly 
occurring  in  such  cases,  though  rejected  by  the  sceptics  as  a  sheer  in- 
vention of  the  harmonists,  to  wit,  that  Peter  was  assailed  by  many 
with  the  same  demand,  and  also  that  the  speakers  moved  from  place  to 
place,  as  they  naturally  would  at  a  time  of  such  excitement  and  com- 
motion, all  apparent  discrepancies  may  be  reconciled  without  the  use 
of  force  or  artifice.  With  these  remarks  upon  the  mutual  relation  oi 
the  four  accounts,  we  may  proceed  to  examine  more  particularly  that 
before  us,  leaving  the  others  to  be  similarly  handled  elsewhere.  Peter 
heing  in  the  court  heloic,  not  in  the  lower  story  of  the  house  or  palace, 
as  the  English  version  seems  to  mean,  but  in  the  open  space  around 
which  it  was  built,  and  which  was  lower  than  the  floor  of  tlie  sur- 
rounding rooms.  One  of  the  maids  (or  female  servants)  of  the  high 
^9?'^<?sf,  perhaps  the  one  who  kept  the  door  (John  18,  17),  though  John's 
statement  may  refer  to  a  previous  challenge  made  when  he  and  Peter 


MARK  14,  67.  68.  60.  405 

entered  (18, 15),  whereas  this  took  place  while  he  was  at  the  fire 
warming  himself  (j^qq  above,  on  v.  54.)  Seeing  Mm  (thus  employed), 
and  no  doubt  struck  with  something  in  his  aspect,  either  previously 
familiar  or  unlike  that  of  the  men  around  him,  looking  at  him  (some- 
thing more  than  simply  seeing  Jmn),  she  says  (directly  to  him),  And 
thou  (or  thou  too)  wast  with  the  JSfazarene  Jesus^  a  contemptuous  de- 
scription commonly  applied  to  Christ  and  to  his  followers  long  after. 
(See  above,  on  1,  24.  10,  47,  and  compare  Matt.  2,  23.  Acts  24,  5.) 
There  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  these  questions  were  malignant,  or 
designed  to  implicate  Peter  in  the  charge  against  his  master.  If  in- 
dicative of  any  thing  beyond  mere  curiosity,  it  was  probably  of  interest 
in  the  case  of  Malchus  (see  above,  on  v.  47,  and  compare  John  18,  26.) 

68.  But  he  denied,  saying,  I  know  not,  neither  nnder- 
stand  I  what  thou  say  est.  And  he  went  out  into  the 
j)orch  ;  and  the  cock  crew. 

Taken  completely  by  surprise,  and  probably  considering  only  the 
possible  hazard  to  himself,  Peter  answered  with  a  prompt  and  categori- 
cal denial  that  he  even  understood  the  question,  a  denial  rendered  still 
more  emphatic  b}''  the  use  of  two  synonymous  verbs,  rendered  Icnoio 
and  understand.  Disturbed,  however,  by  the  question  of  the  woman, 
he  now  passes  from  the  court  itself  into  iha  fore-court  or  vestibule,  i.  e. 
the  front  part  of  the  house,  through  which  lay  the  passage  from  the 
court  into  the  street,  most  probably  an  arched  gateway,  as  in  many 
houses  at  the  present  day,  not  only  in  the  East,  but  in  European  cities, 
such  as  Rome  and  Paris.  This  movement  may  have  been  intended  to 
prepare  for  his  escape  from  the  embarrassing  position  into  which  he 
had  been  brought  by  his  own  rashness.  But  here  he  meets  with  two 
interruptions ;  first,  the  crowing  of  the  cock,  i.  e.  the  earlier  or  midnight 
crow,  which  marked  the  beginning  of  the  third  watch,  as  the  morning 
crow  announced  its  close.  The  other  gospels  refer  only  to  the  latter, 
whereas  Mark  distinctl}^  mentions  both,  perhaps  aided  by  the  indelible 
impressions  of  the  person  most  immediately  concerned,  who,  though  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  much  affected  at  the  moment  by  this  early 
cock-crow,  no  doubt  afterwards  remembered  having  heard  it.  This 
premonitory  signal  of  his  fall  might  possibly  have  hastened  his  de- 
parture, but  for  another  interruption  mentioned  in  the  next  verse. 

69.  And  a  maid  saw  him  again,  and  began  to  say  to 
them  that  stood  by,  This  is  (one)  of  them. 

The  same  woman  who  had  challenged  him  before,  and  who  was 
probably  still  on  duty  at  the  door,  seeing  Mm  again.,  perhaps  about  to 
leave  the  house,  began  to  call  the  attention  of  the  bystanders  to  him, 
by  asserting  positively  what  she  only  asked  before,  saying.  This  {man) 
is  of  them  (from  among  them,  one  of  them),  i.  e.  of  the  followers  of 
Jesus.  It  would  have  been  strange  indeed  if  this  suggestion  had  ex- 
cited no  attention  and  occasioned  no  inquiry.     All  experience  and  anal- 


406  MARK  14,  69.  70.  71. 

ogy  would  lead  us  to  expect  precisely  what  we  find  recorded  in  the 
gospels,  namely,  that  several  began  at  once  to  question  him,  another 
woman  (Matt.  2G,  71),  a  man  (Luke  (22,  58).  and  some  who  had  been 
around  the  lire  (John  18.  25),  especially  a  kinsman  of  the  person  whom 
Peter  himself  had  wounded  (John  18,  20,)  The  attempt  to  represent 
this  most  natural  and  therefore  most  harmonious  variety  as  contradic- 
tion or  a  variant  tradition  is,  like  all  the  other  eflbrts  of  the  same  sort, 
lost  upon  the  great  mass  of  American  and  English  readers. 

YO.  And  he  denied  it  again.  And  a  little  after,  tliej 
that  stood  by  said  again  to  Peter,  Surely  thou  art  (one)  of 
them  ;  for  tliou  art  a  Galilean,  and  thy  speech  agreetli 
(thereto.) 

And  Jie  again  denied^  not  merely  that  he  was  a  follower  of  Christ 
but,  as  we  learn  from  Matthew  (26, 72),  that  he  even  knew  him.  There 
is  here  a  sensible  gradation  or  advance  upon  his  first  denial,  in  the  per- 
sonal and  disrespectful  form  now  given  to  it  (/  Jcnoio  not  tJie  man.) 
But  this  appears  to  have  had  no  eflfect  upon  the  persons  round  him  ;  for 
after  a  little,  a  relative  expression  perfectly  consistent  with  the  more 
exact  specification  of  abotit  one  Tiour  (Luke  22,  59),  during  which  it 
no  doubt  formed  the  subject  of  a  lively  conversation  and  discussion, 
tJiose  standing  ii/,  who  had  been  thus  emploj-ed,  again  said  to  Peter, 
stating  the  conclusion  to  which  they  had  come.  Surety  (certainl}^)  thou 
art  of  them  (i.  e.  thou  belongest  to  them),  as  in  v.  69.  For  this  conclu- 
sion they  assign  a  specific  reason,  that  he  was  a  Galilean,  as  most  of 
Christ's  disciples  were,  and  as  he  was  himself  by  residence,  as  well  as 
by  reputed  birth.  For  this  they  also  gave  a  reason,  that  his  speech, 
(talk  or  dialect)  resembled  (that  of  Galilee),  probably  in  accent  and 
pronunciation,  which,  according  to  the  Jewish  books,  diifered  from  that 
of  Judea  in  confounding  the  gutturals  and  the  two  last  letters  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet.  Provincial  differences  of  this  kind  are  mentioned 
very  early  in  the  Sacred  History.    (See  Judges  12,  6.) 

71.  But  he  began  to  curse  and  to  swear,  (saying)  I 
know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak. 

This  is  the  third  stage  or  degree  of  the  denial,  in  which  Peter,  not 
contented  with  repeating  what  he  said  before,  abjures  still  moi'e  dis- 
tinctly and  contemptuously  all  acquaintance  with  the  Saviour,  and  as  if 
this  most  disloyal  lie  were  still  too  little,  corroborates  it  with  profane 
oaths  and  an  impious  imprecation  of  divine  wrath  on  himself,  if  he  even 
knew  the  man  of  whom  they  spake,  and  to  whom  he  had,  a  few  hours 
earlier,  made  the  strong  self-confident  assurance  recorded  in  vs.  29.  31. 
He  began  (perhaps  implying  that  he  afterwards  continued)  to  anathe- 
matize (or  curse  himself  if  what  he  said  was  false)  and  swear  (or  in- 
voke God  as  a  witness  of  its  truth.)  Besides  the  other  aggravations 
of  this  fearful  sin,  its  combination  of  falsehood,  ingratitude,  disloyalty, 


MARK   U,  71.  72.  407 

and  breach  of  promise,  it  appears  to  have  involved  a  momentary  lapse 
into  sinful  habits  long  since  forsaken,  as  the  supposition,  that  Peter  had 
been  once  addicted  to  profaneness,  is  not  only  natural  and  credible,  but 
serves  to  explain  his  gratuitous  resort  to  such  means  of  corroboration  in 
the  case  before  us. 

72.  And  the  second  time  the  cock  crew.  And  Peter 
called  to  mind  the  word  that  Jesns  said  nnto  him,  Before 
the  cock  crow  twice,  thon  slialt  deny  me  thrice.  And 
when  he  thonght  thereon,  he  wept. 

It  was  not  from  any  natural  cause,  but  by  a  special  providential  or- 
dering, that  the  second  or  morning  cock-crow  had  so  different  an  eifect 
from  the  first,  to  wit,  that  of  recalling  to  the  mind  of  Peter  the  predic- 
tion of  his  master  (see  above,  on  v.  30.)  That  such  oblivion  is  possible 
under  strong  excitement  and  temptation,  must  be  known  to  thousands 
from  their  own  experience,  who  will  therefore  need  no  refutation  of  the 
charge,  that  the  narrative  is  untrue  because  "  unpsychological."  While 
Mark  and  Matthew  (26,  75)  both  omit  a  striking  and  affecting  circum- 
stance preserved  by  Luke  (22,  Gl),  the  first  named  uses  an  expression 
found  in  neither  of  the  others,  and  the  sense  of  which  is  much  disputed, 
although  no  explanation  is  more  probable  than  that  given  in  the  Eng- 
lish Bible,  whe^ihe  thought  thereon,  literally,  casting  (his  mind)  oy^  (it.) 
Examples  of  this  usage  have  been  found  in  several  of  the  latter  classics, 
such  as  Plutarch,  Marcus  Antoninus,  Sextus  Empiricus,  and  Galen. 
The  other  explanations  which  have  been  proposed,  e.  g.  rushing  out^ 
covering  (Jiis  head), 'beginning,  continuing,  &c.  are  all  either  contrary 
to  usage  or  require  too  much  to  be  supplied.  The  only  one  entitled  to 
compete  with  that  first  given  takes  the  verb  in  the  same  sense  but  sup- 
plies a  different  object,  casting  (his  eyes)  07i  (him),  i.  e.  looking  at  the 
Saviour  as  he  passed,  an  act  exactly  corresponding  to  the  one  ascribed 
to  Christ  himself  by  Luke  (22,  61),  and  represented  as  the  immediate 
cause  of  his  self-recollection  and  repentance.  If  this  be  philologically 
possible,  it  certainly  presents  a  very  beautiful  antithesis  between  the 
statements  of  the  two  evangelists,  the  one  relating  how  the  Lord  looked 
at  Peter,  and  the  other  how  Peter,,  looking  at  the  Lord,  wept  Ijitterly, 


-♦>^- 


CIIAPTEE  XY, 

Having  traced  the  history  of  our  Lord's  prosecution  to  his  condem- 
nation by  the  Sanhedrim,  and  added  as  an  episode  the  brief  apostasy 
of  Peter,  Mark  now  proceeds  to  give  the  second  part  of  this  judicial 
process,  namely,  that  which  took  place  at  the  judgment-seat  of  Pilate, 
the  Roman  Procurator  of  Judea,  before  whom  he  avows  his  royal  dig- 


408  MARK  15,  1. 

nity,  but  gives  no  answer  to  the  accusations  of  the  Jewish  rulers 
(1-5.)  Seeing  these  accusations  to  be  groundless,  Pilate  seeks  to  give 
him  the  advantage  of  a  custom  then  prevailing,  according  to  which 
some  one  prisoner  was  set  free  at  the  yearly  festival ;  but  the  people, 
instigated  by  their  rulers,  demand  the  release  of  a  notorious  criminal, 
and  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  in  his  stead  (6-14.)  With  culpable  facil- 
ity the  governor,  though  anxious  to  deliver  him,  at  length  abandons 
the  attempt,  and  allows  them  first  to  mock  and  then  to  crucif}^  him 
(lC-20.)  Mark  describes  briefly,  but  with  great  distinctness,  the  pro- 
cession for  this  purpose  from  the  judgment-hall  to  Golgotha,  the  treat- 
ment which  he  there  received,  and  various  coincidences  tending  to 
identify  him  as  the  Messiah  of  the  prophecies  (21-32.)  After  six 
hours  of  preternatural  darkness,  and  a  dying  cr}^  which  led  to  new 
derision  on  the  part  of  his  tormentors,  he  expires  upon  the  cross, 
thereb}'  opening  a  free  access  to  God,  denoted  by  the  rending  of  the 
vail  within  the  temple,  and  is  acknowledged  as  the  Son  of  God  by  the 
Roman  officer  who  had  charge  of  his  execution,  as  well  as  by  the 
women  who  came  up  with  him  from  Galilee  (33-41.)  The  completion 
of  his  great  work,  and  the  end  of  his  prolonged  humiliation,  are  indi- 
cated by  a  sudden  change  in  the  tone  of  the  whole  history,  and  the 
providential  care  with  which  his  body  'is  preserved  from  profanation 
and  promiscuous  burial,  being  entrusted  to  the  care  of  a  wealthy  ruler 
who  believed  in  him,  laid  in  a  new  grave  at  or  near  the  place  of  cruci- 
fixion, and  watched  through  the  Sabbath  by  those  female  followers, 
who  seem  to  have  filled  the  place  of  the  apostles  during  their  defec- 
tion (42-47.)  Of  these  events  we  have  three  accounts  besides  the  one 
before  us.  that  of  Matthew  (xxvii)  most  resembling  it,  while  those  of 
Luke  (xxiii)  and  John  (xviii.  xix)  are  more  distinct  and  independent, 
though  substantially  harmonious,  and  forming  altogether  a  historical 
picture  which  has  never  been  surpassed,  and  in  which  the  fights  and 
shades  are  blended  with  an  effect  bej^ond  all  human  art  and  skill.  The 
particular  narrative  of  ]Mark,  though  vivid,  has  comparatively  few  of 
those  minute  strokes,  which  he  elsewhere  adds  so  often  to  the  parallel 
accounts  ;  a  difterence  perhaps  arising  from  the  interruption  of  the  re- 
collections and  impressions  with  which  Peter  hgid  before  supplied  him. 

1.  And  st]*aiglitway  in  tlie  morning,  the  chief  priests 
held  a  consnltation  with  the  ehlers  and  scribes  and  the 
whole  council,  and  bound  Jesus,  and  carried  (him)  away, 
and  delivered  (liim)  to  Pilate. 

Here  begins  the  second  part  of  our  Lord's  trial,  that  which  took 
place  before  the  Roman  governor.  Immediately  at  (or  toicards)  the 
daion^  in  Greek  an  adverb  meaning  early ^  early  in  the  morning  (see 
above  on  1,  35.  11,  30.  13,  35),  but  here  used  as  a  noun,  with  the  arti- 
cle prefixed,  and  governed  by  a  preposition.  The  whole  phrase  means, 
as  soon  as  it  was  day,  without  defining  the  precise  time  any  further. 
The  chief  priests  are  spoken  of  throughout  this  whole  transaction  as 


MARK   15,  1.  2.  409 


the  leaders  in  it,  which  was  the  natural  result  of  their  position  as  the 
official  representatives  of  the  theocracy  and  the  highest  of  the  orders 
which  composed  the  Sanhedrim.  As  the  Greek  word  rendered  consul- 
tation sometimes  means  a  council  (as  in  Acts  25, 12),  the  M^hole  phrase 
(maMng  a  council)  might  be  understood  to  denote  the  holding  of  a 
formal  meeting ;  but  the  usage  of  the  gospels  is  decidedly  in  favour  of 
explaining  it  to  mean  the  act  of  private  consultation  and  deliberation, 
as  to  what  step  they  should  next  take.  (See  above,  on  3,  6,  and  com- 
pare Matt.  12,  14.  22, 15.  27,  7.  28, 12.)  The  priests  consulted  with 
the  other  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  the  elders  and  scribes^  all  three 
classes  being  comprehended  in  the  phrase  which  follows  {and  the  whole 
Synedriwn)^  a  formal  and  exact  enumeration,  of  which  we  have  already 
had  repeated  instances,  all  intended  to  evince  the  national  and  public 
character  of  the  transaction.  The  necessity  of  further  consultation  at 
this  stage  of  the  proceedings  arose  from  the  fact  that  they  had  lost  the 
power  of  inflicting  capital  punishments,  as  we  learn,  not  only  from 
John  18,  31,  but  from  Josephus  and  the  Talmud,  which  contains  a  tra- 
ditional statement,  that  this  power  was  taken  from  the  Sanhedrim, 
about  forty  years  before  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem.  Although  they 
had  condemned  the  Saviour,  therefore,  it  was  not  in  their  power  to 
execute  the  sentence,  without  resorting  to  their  foreign  masters  ;  and 
they  might  well  regard  it  as  a  serious  question  how  this  should  be 
done  without  undue  concession  on  the  one  hand,  or  a  failure  to  attain 
their  purpose  on  the  other.  The  result  of  their  deliberation  was,  that 
they  replaced  the  prisoner's  bonds,  which  may  have  been  removed 
during  the  trial,  and  carried  him  aioay^  from  the  high  priest's  house, 
which  was  no  doubt  near  the  temple,  to  that  of  the  Procurator  on 
Mount  Zion,  and  delivered  him,  gave  him  up,  transferred  him  as  a 
prisoner,  to  Pilate.  After  the  eldest  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  Archelaus, 
(Matt.  2,  22),  had  been  recalled  and  banished  to  Gaul  by  Augustus, 
Judea  was  annexed  to  the  great  Roman  province  of  Syria,  and  gov- 
erned by  deputies  called  Procurators,  the  fourth  of  whom  was  Valerius 
Gratus  and  the  fifth  Pontius  Pilatus,  appointed  in  the  thirteenth  year 
of  Tiberius,  and  already  hated  by  the  Jews  for  his  extortions  and 
severities  (compare  Luke  13, 1.)  Like  his  predecessors  and  successors 
in  that  ottice,  he  resided  commonly  at  Cesarea  (compare  Acts  23,  33. 
25, 1.  4.  6. 13),  but  attended  at  Jerusalem  during  the  great  festivals,  in 
order  to  preserve  the  peace,  then  specially  endangered,  and  also  it  is 
said  to  exercise  judicial  functions,  these  times  of  extraordinary  con- 
course being  naturally  chosen  for  that  purpose.     (See  below,  on  v.  V.) 

2.  And  Pilate  asked  him,  Art  tlioii  the  King  of  the 
Jews  ?   And  he,  answering,  said  unto  him,  Thoii  sayest  (it.) 

Omitting  the  preliminary  dialogue  with  Pilate,  which  was  after- 
wards supplied  by  John  (18,  29-31),  and  in  which  the  governor  refused 
to  ratify  and  execute  their  sentence  without  knowing  the  charge  and 
the  evidence  on  which  it  rested,  Mark  proceeds  at  once  to  their  com- 
pliance with  this  requisition,  by  appearing  before  Pilate,  not  as  judges 
18 


410  MAEK  15,  2.  3.  4. 

but  accusers  of  their  own  Messiah.  Knowing  well  that  the  religious 
charge  of  blasphemy,  on  which  they  had  themselves  convicted  him 
(13,  G4),  would  not  be  entertained  at  that  tribunal,  they  artfully  ac- 
cused him  of  claiming  to  be  King  of  the  Jews,  and  as  such  a  com- 
petitor or  rival  of  the  Emperor  (Luke  23,  2.)  Pilate  therefore  asks 
him,  art  tliou  the  King  of  the  Jews?  or  as  the  words  might  be  trans- 
lated Avith  a  closer  adherence  to  the  form  of  the  original,  thou  art 
{then)  King  of  the  Jetcsl  which  gives  to  the  inquiry  a  slight  tone  of 
sarcasm,  perfectly  in  keeping  with  what  follows.  The  answer  of  our 
Lord,  thou  say  est  (it),  interpreted  according  to  its  most  obvious  mean- 
ing and  the  idiom  of  other  languages,  might  be  regarded  as  an  evasion 
or  even  a  negation  of  the  question,  and  is  actually  so  explained  by  one 
of  the  Greek  commentators,  '  thou  sayest  (it),  not  I ! '  It  is  now 
agreed,  however,  that  the  idiom  is  a  Hebrew  one,  of  which  traces  have 
been  found  in  later  Jewish  books,  and  which  amount  to  a  strong 
affirmation.  That  our  Lord  employed  this  very  phrase,  or  its  exact 
equivalent,  may  be  inferred  from  its  appearance  in  all  four  accounts. 
(Compare  Matt.  27, 11.  Luke  23,  3.  John  18,  37.) 

3.  And  the  chief  priests  accused  him  of  many  things ; 
but  he  answered  nothing. 

In  addition  to  this  general  charge  of  claiming  royal  honours,  or 
perhaps  in  mere  specification  of  it,  the  chief  priests,  his  official  prose- 
cutors, accused  him  (of)  many  (things),  or  much  (see  above,  on  1,45. 
3, 12.  5, 10.  23,  43.  9,  26),  to  which  he  answered  nothing,  as  appears 
from  Pilate's  question  in  the  next  verse.  The  positive  statement 
of  the  fact  here  is  peculiar  to  King  James's  Bible,  being  found 
neither  in  the  Greek  text  nor  in  any  of  the  earlier  English  versions. 
The  reasons  of  this  silence  were  no  doubt  the  same  as  when  he  stood 
before  the  Sanhedrim  (see  above,  on  14,  GO.  61)  ;  the  frivolity  of  the 
charges,  the  certainty  of  condemnation,  and  his  own  unwillingness  to 
be  acquitted.  The  statement  has  reference  only  to  the  charges  of  the 
Jews,  and  is  therefore  perfectly  consistent  with  John's  detailed  report 
of  a  conversation  between  Christ  and  Pilate,  as  to  the  nature  of  his 
kingdom,  by  which  the  governor  appears  to  have  been  satisfied  that 
there  was  nothing  in  his  claims  adverse  to  the  imperial  prerogative  or 
dangerous  to  the  public  peace.  (See  John  18,  31-38.)  He  was  thus 
enabled  to  sec  through  the  flimsy  pretext  upon  which  the  Jewish  rulers 
claimed  his  interference  for  the  punishment  of  Christ  as  a  political 
offender,  the  only  means  by  which  they  thought  it  possible  to  compass 
his  destruction. 

4.  And  Pilate   asked  liim  again,  saying,  Answerest 

tliou  nothing  ?    behold  how  many  things   tliey  witness 

against  thee. 

But  Pilate,  although  satisfied  that  these  accusations  were  malicious 
and  frivolous,  could  not  understand  our  Lord's  refusal  to  give  them  a 


MARK  15,  4.  5.  G.  411 


direct  and  formal  contradiction.  He  therefore  expresses  his  surprise 
at  this  reserve,  not  only  as  injurious  to  the  prisoner's  own  cause,  but  as 
making  it  less  easy  for  the  governor  himself  to  discharge  a  prisoner, 
whom  he  fully  believed  to  be  innocent,  but  who  obstinately  refused  to 
plead  not  guilty.  This  idea  is  suggested  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse 
before  us,  see  hoto  many  (^and  how  great)  tilings  they  testify  against 
tliee  !  As  if  he  had  said,  *  how  can  I  dismiss  such  multiplied  and  for- 
mal charges,  even  though  I  think  them  groundless,  if  the  accused  party 
will  not  say  they  are  so  ?  '  Thus  understood,  the  questions  here  re- 
corded are  not  merely  curious,  much  less  malignant,  but  intended  to 
facilitate  our  Lord's  acquittal. 

5.  But  Jesus  yet  answered  nothing;   so  that  Pilate 
marvelled. 

This  surprise  of  Pilate  was  increased  on  finding,  that  the  prisoner 
not  only  stood  mute  to  the  charges  of  the  priests,  but  refused  to  give 
the  governor  a  reason  for  his  silence.  The  apparent  harshness  of  this 
conduct  with  respect  to  Pilate,  who  undoubtedly  at  this  time  wished 
to  set  him  free,  is  relieved  by  the  consideration,  that  he  ought  to  have 
done  so  on  his  own  conviction,  and  that  even  the  most  formal  contra- 
diction on  our  Lord's  part  would  not  have  prevented  or  delayed  the 
fatal  concession,  by  which  Pilate  ultimately  sacrificed  him  to  his  ene- 
mies. As  yet,  however,  he  continues  to  pronounce  him  guiltless,  and 
after  an  attempt  to  transfer  him  to  Herod's  jurisdiction  (Luke  23, 
5-12),  still  reiterates  the  same  conviction  (Luke  23,  13-15.)  Passing 
over  these  particulars,  preserved  by  Luke,  Mark  proceeds  to  describe 
Pilate's  next  expedient  for  the  rescue  of  his  prisoner. 


6.  Kow  at  (that)  feast   he   released   unto   them    one 
prisoner,  whomsoever  they  desired. 

At  that  feast  he  released  seems  to  be  an  anticipation  of  what  after- 
wards occurred  as  to  Barabbas  ;  but  the  Greek  words  are  expressive, 
not  of  an  incident,  but  of  an  usage.  At  that  feast^  i.  e.  at  the  pass- 
over  (John  18,  39),  not  only  that  year,  but  every  year,  or  as  the  words 
might  be  translated, /k/6'^  hy  feast  (see  above,  on  13,  8.  14,  49),  he  re- 
leased (i.  e.  as  the  imperfect  tense  implies,  he  was  accustomed  to 
release)  unto  them  (for  their  benefit  or  satisfaction)  whomsoever  they 
desired,  or  requested  as  a  favour  to  themselves,  which  is  the  true  force 
of  the  niiddle  voice  (see  above,  on  6,  24.  25.  10,  38.  11,  24.)  The 
origin  of  this  strange  practice  is  entirely  unknown ;  but  as  no  trace 
of  it  Tias  been  found  in  Jewish  books,  it  was  probably  established  by 
the  Romans,  as  a  means  of  popular  conciliation,  in  the  troublous  times 
preceding  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  classical  analogies  which 
some  adduce,  the  Greek  Thesmoi^horia  and  the  Roman  Lectisternia 
are  only  partial,  and  throw  little  light  upon  the  Jewish  custom. 


412  MARK  15,  7-10. 


7.  And  there  was  (one)  named  Barabbas,  (which  lay) 
bound  with  them  that  had  made  insurrection  with  him, 
who  had  committed  murder  in  the  insurrection. 

There  happened  at  this  time  to  be  a  notable  (or  noted)  prisoner 
(Matt.  27,  16),  described  by  Mark  and  Luke  (23, 19)  as  a  rebel  and  a 
murderer,  and  by  John  (18,  40)  as  a  robber,  all  which  expressions 
seem  to  indicate  him  as  a  Zealot,  one  of  those  fanatical  insurgents, 
whose  excesses  Josephus  represents  as  growing  more  and  more  atro- 
cious till  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  and  as  contributing  in  no  small 
measure  to  the  ultimate  catastrophe  (see  above,  on  3,  18.  11, 15.)  The 
political  complexion  thus  imparted  to  his  crimes  may  account  in  part 
for  the  popular  clamor  in  his  favour.  The  last  clause  is  plural,  and 
refers  to  to  his  fellow-rebels  (or  insurgents^) 

8.  And  the  multitude,  crying  aloud,  began  to  desire 

(him  to  do)  as  he  had  ever  done  unto  them. 

Instead  of  crying  out  (or  aloud),  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts 
and  versions  have  ascending  (going  up)  i.  e.  to  the  Praitorium  (see  be- 
low, on  V.  16.)  Began  (and  continued)  to  desire  (or  rather  to  express 
desire  by  asking,  as  in  v.  6.)  Him  to  do,  supplied  by  the  translators, 
is  no  doubt  the  correct  mode  of  completing  the  ellipsis.  As  lie  alioays 
did  to  them  (or  for  tliem,  as  in  v.  6)  may  perhaps  imply  that  Pilate 
was  himself  the  author  of  this  questionable  practice,  tlrough  it  does  not 
necessarily  exclude  a  reference  to  his  predecessors  also.  Though  the 
populace  (6  oxKo^)  would  no  doubt  have  claimed  their  privilege  in  any 
case,  they  were  probably  prompted  to  demand  it  still  more  importu- 
nately by  their  rulers,  with  a  view  to  the  attainment  of  their  own  ma- 
lignant purpose  (see  below,  on  v.  11.) 

9.  But  Pilate  answered  them,  saying,  Will  j^e  that  I 

release  unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jcavs  % 

From  Mark's  brief  narrative  it  might  appear,  that  Pilate  merely 
caught  at  the  demand  of  the  people  for  a  prisoner's  release,  as  possibly 
affording  him  the  means  of  rescuing  our  Lord,  whose  innocence  of  all 
political  designs  he  not  only  saw  but  had  repeatedly  asserted  (Luke  23, 
4, 14.)  But  we  learn  from  the  more  detailed  account  in  Matthew 
(27, 17),  that  Pilate  had  assembled  them  and  given  them  their  choice 
between  Barabbas  and  Jesus,  erroneously  but  naturally  thinking  to 
secure  the  liberation  of  the  latter  by  limiting  the  choice  to  him  and  to 
so  infamous  a  convict.  But  he  ought  to  have  considered  that  the  feel- 
ing of  the  Jews  towards  Christ  (as  described  in  the  next  verse)  would 
have  led  them  to  prefer  any  other,  however  infamous,  much  more  one 
whose  resistance  to  the  Roman  power  they  may  have  secretly  applauded 
as  a  zeal  for  God. 

10.  For  he  knew  that  the  chief  priests  had  delivered 
him  for  envy. 


MARK  15,  10.  11.  413 

For  introdncGS  Pilate's  reason  for  calling  him  King  of  tlie  Jews 
(compare  John  18,  29),  to  wit,  because  he  knew  that  they  had  brought 
him  to  his  bar  and  transferred  him  to  the  Roman  jurisdiction,  not  be- 
cause they  thought  him  really  an  enemy  to  Oajsar,  or,  if  they  did  so, 
would  have  valued  him  the  less  on  that  account,  but  because  he  was  a 
formidable  rival  of  their  own,  and  if  his  claims  were  established,  must 
at  once  destroy  their  influence  and  power  as  the  chiefs  of  the  theocracy, 
and  as  such  representing  the  Messiah  till  he  came,  so  that  their  selfish 
interest  would  prompt  them  to  defer  his  advent  to  the  latest  moment. 
This  is  the  jealousy  or  party-spirit,  rather  than  personal  ewGy^  which 
the  governor  correctly  saw  to  be  the  motive  of  their  whole  proceeding 
against  Christ,  and  which  he  covertly  suggested  by  demanding  whether 
he  should  not  release  their  king.  This  description  involves  likewise  a 
contemptuous  allusion  to  their  charges  of  ambitious  aspirations  against 
one  so  harmless  and,  as  he  supposed,  so  powerless  as  the  man  before 
him.  It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  jealousy  or  envy  here  re- 
ferred to  was  imputed  by  Pilate  to  the  chief:  priests  as  the  leaders  in 
this  persecution  j  while  the  proposition  in  the  verse  preceding  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  multitude,  as  if  in  answer  to  their  own  demand  for  their 
accustomed  privilege.  It  may  be  regarded  therefore  as  a  sort  of  appeal 
from  the  rulers  to  the  people,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  You  ask  for  a  prisoner 
as  usual ;  well,  here  is  j'our  King,  whom  j'our  leaders  have  just  brought 
before  me  ;  shall  I  set  him  free  I ' 

11.  But  the  chief  priests  moved  the  people  that  he 
should  rather  release  Barabbas  unto  them. 

To  counteract  the  governor's  appeal  to  the  people,  which  appeared 
to  recognize  Jesus  as  their  King,  and  in  that  character  proposed  to  set 
him  free,  the  chief  priests  and  elders  (Matt.  27,  20)  mozed  (agitated, 
instigated,  stirred  up)  tlie  crowd  (or  rabble)  by  persuasion  (Matt,  ib.) 
to  demand,  tliat  lie  should  rather  release  (discharge,  set  free)  Barab- 
las  to  them  (or  for  them,  as  in  vs.  G.  8.)  This  deliberate  preference  of 
a  bad  man  to  a  good  one,  of  a  justly  condemned  criminal  to  one  whom 
even  Pilate  recognized  as  innocent,  would  have  been  enough  to  brand 
the  conduct  of  the  priests  with  infamy.  But  when  to  this  we  add  that 
they  preferred  a  murderer  to  the  Lord  of  life,  a  rebel  and  a  robber  to  a 
prophet,  to  their  own  Messiah,  nay,  to  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  him- 
self, this  perverseness  seems  almost  incredible  and  altogether  irrecon- 
cileable  with  rectitude  of  purpose  and  sincere  conviction.  For  a  mas- 
terly exposure  of  these  aggravating  circumstances  in  the  conduct  of  the 
Jewish  rulers  compare  Acts  3,  13-15,  where  Peter  adds  the  very 
flict  here  mentioned,  that  they  insisted  on  his  death  in  opposition  to 
the  judgment  and  the  wishes  of  a  heathen  magistrate. 

12.  And  Pilate  answered,  and  said  again  unto  them, 
What  will  ye  then  that  I  shall  do  (unto  him)  whom  ye 
call  the  King  of  the  Jews  ? 


414  MxYRK  15,  12.  13. 

Tlie  expression  of  their  choice  between  the  i)risoners  seems  to 
have  taken  Pilate  by  surprise,  and  to  have  left  him  in  doubt  as  to  their 
wishes  with  respect  to  Jesus ;  for  he  probably  could  not  even  yet  be- 
lieve, that  they  would  go  the  whole  length  of  their  murderous  inten- 
tions, and  therefore  asks  them  how  this  other  prisoner  shall  be  disposed 
of.  As  this  was  not  within  their  jurisdiction,  or  in  any  way  at  their 
disposal,  since  their  extradition  of  the  prisoner  to  Pilate,  he  must  be 
understood  as  asking,  not  for  information,  or  in  deference  to  their  opin- 
ion or  desire,  but  simply  to  exj^ress  his  own  surprise  at  their  extraordi- 
nary choice.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  Do  you  not  perceive  that  by  choosing 
the  robber,  murderer,  and  rebel,  to  be  set  free,  you  leave  the  other 
prisoner  in  custody  ?  and  how  do  you  expect  him  to  be  treated  1 ' 

13.  And  they  cried  out  again,  Crucify  liim! 

Again  does  not  mean  that  they  had  uttered  this  same  cr}^  before, 
but  simply  that  they  now  uttered  it  in  reply  to  Pilate's  question,  in 
return  to  what  they  had  just  heard.  We  are  now  so  accustomed  to 
associate  crucifixion  with  the  death  of  Christ,  that  it  may  seem  to  us 
a  matter  of  course  that  he  should  die  in  that  way,  rather  than  in  any 
other.  But  as  the  proposition  came  from  the  Jews  and  not  the  Ro- 
mans, although  crucifixion  was  a  Roman  not  a  Jewish  punishment, 
and  although  if  he  had  been  executed  b}^  the  Jews  themselves  he 
would  probably  have  died  by  lapidation  (see  above,  on  12,  4),  it  be- 
comes a  question,  why  the  multitude  cried  crucify  him,  rather  than 
behead  him,  stone  him,  or  ^imiiiy ,  put  him  to  death.  That  crucifixion 
was  at  once  the  most  painful  and  disgraceful  mode  of  capital  punish- 
ment, was  no  doubt  a  reason  for  our  Lord's  submitting  to  it  as  a  part 
of  his  humiliation  and  atoning  passion,  but  can  scarcely  have  induced 
the  Jews  to  clamor  for  it,  as  they  here  do,  without  some  more  proxi- 
mate and  palpable  occasion.  Such  an  occasion  was  afforded  b}'-  the 
fact,  that  Pilate  had  just  given  them  their  choice  between  two  prison- 
ers, and  they,  in  choosing  one,  had  virtually  put  the  other  in  his  place ; 
and  as  Barabbas  by  the  Roman  law  would  no  doubt  have  been  crucified, 
they  ask  that  Jesus  may  be  treated  likewise.  Thus  understood,  the 
cry  of  the  infatuated  rabble.  Crucify  him  !  really  means,  deal  with 
him  as  you  would  have  dealt  with  Barabbas,  and  with  Barabbas  as 
you  would  have  dealt  with  him,  i.  e.  crucify  the  one  and  release  the 
other.  By  causes  seemingly  so  accidental  was  the  great  providential 
purpose  realized,  according  to  which  Christ  was  to  die  an  ignominious 
and  agonizing  death,  yet  one  which  should  preserve  the  integrity  of  his 
body  from  mutilation  or  distoi-tion,  and  at  the  same  time  bring  about 
a  literal  fuliilmcnt  of  the  curse  pronounced  on  every  one  who  hangs 
upon  a  tree,  (see  Deut.  21,  23,  and  compare  Gal.  3, 13,)  the  original 
reference  in  which  is  to  the  posthumous  exposure  of  the  body  after 
stoning  or  beheading,  by  suspension  in  some  public  place,  the  only 
hanging  practised  under  the  law  of  jNloses,  while  the  terms  of  the 
malediction  are  so  chosen  as  to  be  appropriate  to  crucifixion  also, 
a    remarkable    example    of    the     unexpected    way    in    which    the 


MARK  15,  14.  15.  415 

prophecies  are  often  verified.  This  was  in  fact  one  of  the  ends  to  be 
accomphshed  by  the  Saviour's  transfer  from  the  Jewish  to  tlie  Roman 
power,  as  we  learn  from  the  remarkable  expressions  of  a  different  evan- 
gelist (John  18,  32.) 

14.  Then  Pilate  said  unto  tliem,  Why,  what  evil  hath 
he  clone  ?  And  they  cried  out  the  more  exceedingly, 
Crucify  him! 

Pilate  perceives  too  late  the  error,  into  which  he  had  fallen,  of  allow- 
ing- the  people  a  specific  choice  between  the  prisoners,  and  of  even 
seeming  to  refer  the  fate  of  him  whom  he  considered  innocent  to 
their  decision.  But  instead  of  stopping  short  at  this  point,  he  betrays 
his  weakness  and  his  want  of  principle  by  needlessly  reopening  the 
question,  and  demanding  upon  what  ground  they  insisted  on  his  exe- 
cution. Why,  in  the  original,  is  for,  implying  a  negation  (no,  not  so, 
for  wliat  evil  hath  he  done?)  Perceiving  their  advantage  and  his 
vacillation,  the  mob,  as  might  have  been  expected,  under  the  direction 
of  their  artful  and  malignant  leaders,  answered  this  question  only  by 
crying  more  exeeedingly  (or  out  of  measure,  as  the  same  word  or  a 
kindred  one  is  rendered  in  10,  20  above),  crucify  him,  i.  e.  'carry  out 
your  own  plan,  stand  to  your  agreement,  execute  your  bargain ;  you 
have  given  us  our  choice  and  we  have  chosen  Barabbas  ;  now  do  your 
part  and  put  Jesus  in  his  place.' 

15.  And  (so)  Pilate,  willing  to  content  the  people,  re- 
leased Barabbas  unto  tliem,  and  delivered  Jesus,  when  he 
had  scourged  (him),  to  be  crucified. 

Willing,  not  in  the  attenuated  modern  sense  of  having  no  objec- 
tion, but  in  the  primary  and  strong  sense  of  desiring,  wishing.  This 
distinction  is  important,  as  the  word,  correctly  understood,  implies 
that  Pilate  acted  under  the  influence  of  other  motives  than  such  as 
grew  directly  out  of  this  atFair.  That  a  Roman  soldier  and  an  arbi- 
trary ruler  should  have  yielded  to  mere  clamour,  in  direct  opposition 
to  his  own  avowed  convictions,  is  so  highly  improbable  as  not  to  be 
admissible,  if  any  other  explanation  of  his  conduct  can  be  even  plau- 
sibly suggested.  Such  an  explanation  is  perhaps  afforded  by  the  well 
known  fact,  attested  by  Josephus  and  contemporary  classical  histo- 
rians, that  the  Jews  were  among  the  most  unmanageable  and  refractory 
of  all  the  conquered  nations ;  that  the  Roman  emperors  attached  an 
almost  disproportionate  importance  to  their  being  kept  in  due  subjec- 
tion, by  a  skilful  combination  of  concession  and  coercion  ;  that  it  had 
now  become  a  constant  practice  for  the  people  to  complain  at  Rome  of 
oppression  and  mal-administration ;  and  that  these  complaints  were 
treated  with  particular  attention  and  sometimes  followed  by  the  most 
unfortunate  results  to  those  who  had  occasioned  them.  Besides  the 
case  of  Archelaus,  which  has  been  already  mentioned,  we  find  two  of 


416  MARK  15,  15. 

the  later  procurators,  Felix  and  Festus,  although  men  of  very  different 
character,  attempting-  to  conciliate  the  Jews,  or  as  Luke  expresses  it, 
to  lay  1/p  favour  with  them  (i.  e.  against  the  day  of  reckoning  at 
Rome),  by  unjust  treatment  of  an  eminent  apostle  (compare  Acts  24, 
27.  25,  0.)  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  Pilate  shared  the 
same  anxiety,  and  therefore  highl}''  probable,  that  when  he  found  the 
■whole  mass  of  the  people  thus  united  with  their  leaders  in  demanding 
this  unrighteous  sacrifice,  it  occurred  to  him  that  he  had  now  an  unex- 
pected opportunity  of  gaining  popularity,  and  possibly  escaping  ruin, 
by  abandoning  one  whom  he  knew  to  be  innocent  indeed,  but  whose 
destruction  would  appear  to  such  a  man  a  small  price  to  be  paid  for 
his  own  safety.  If  this  view  of  the  matter  be  correct,  he  was  not 
merely  icilUng  to  content  tlie -peoiiile  in  relation  to  this  one  affair,  but 
positively  wished  to  gain  their  favour,  with  respect  to  his  own  official 
conduct,  and  the  influence  which  they  might  exert  against  him,  when 
his  functions  ended.  This  supposition,  while  it  serves  in  some  measure 
to  account  for  Pilate's  otherwise  inexplicable  conduct,  far  from  extenu- 
ating aggravates  his  guilt,  by  assigning  a  directly  selfish  motive  for 
what  might  else  have  seemed  the  mere  effect  of  weakness.  To  content 
the  'peo]jle  is  a  Latin  legal  phrase  {satis  facere')  translated  into  Greek 
(to  iKavov  7TOLrj(T(u),  the  converse  or  correlative  of  which  occurs  in  Acts 
17,  19.  It  is  here  not  a  technical  but  popular  expression,  correspond- 
ing to  our  own  word  satisfy,  derived  from  the  Latin  one  just  men- 
tioned. The  ijeople^  here  as  throughout  this  narrative,  is  a  Gree'k  word 
meaning  crowd  or  raljble^  and  employed  to  signifj'  the  tumultuary  char- 
acter of  the  proceeding,  which  was  rendered  national  less  by  the  popu- 
lar participation  than  by  that  of  the  highest  theocratical  authorities. 
The  extraordinary  change  in  the  feelings  of  the  people,  since  their  joyful 
recognition  of  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah  (see  above,  on  11,  8-10),  has 
been  made  the  ground  of  sceptical  objection,  but  admits  of  satisfactory 
solution  from  the  following  considerations.  Even  granting  that  the 
multitude  on  both  occasions  was  substantially  the  same,  which  is  a 
very  large  concession,  when  we  take  into  account  the  vast  numbers 
present  at  Jerusalem  besides  the  ordinary  population,  we  have  no  right 
or  reason  to  regard  it  as  exempt  from  that  mobility  of  feeling  and  of 
conduct,  to  which  the  word  mol)  owes  its  origin,  and  which  is  constantly 
exemplified  throughout  the  world,  in  every  time  of  more  than  usual 
excitement,  and  is  commonly  ascribed  to  the  extraordinary  force  of 
human  sympathy  in  large  crowds,  making  them  susceptible  of  influ- 
ences which  as  individuals  they  would  scarcely  feel  at  all.  This  mere 
susceptibility,  however,  would  account  for  nothing,  unless  the  influence 
itself  can  be  detected,  as  it  may  be  here,  in  the  concerted  action  of  the 
theocratic  rulers,  which  had  never  yet  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
peoi)le  as  it  was  in  this  case,  all  the  previous  opposition  having  been 
that  of  individuals  and  private  combinations.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
the  masses,  with  their  habits  of  religious  veneration  for  the  leaders 
of  the  church  or  nation,  on  finding  that  these  leaders,  as  a  bod}', 
looked  on  Christ  as  an  impostor  and  blasphemer,  should  have  suddenly 
renounced  him  as  one  who  had  deceived  themselves.     It  may  be  asked, 


MARK  15,  15.  IG.  417 

however,  why  the  rulers  did  not  earlier  avail  themselves  of  this  con- 
trolling influence,  instead  of  constantly  deferring  the  execution  of  their 
plans  for  fear  of  popular  resistance.  (See  above,  on  14,  2,  and  compare 
Luke  22,  6.)  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  this  requires  explanation,  and 
implies  that  something  had  occurred  to  make  the  .people  less  disposed 
to  such  resistance,  and  to  give  the  rulers  influence  or  freer  scope.  This 
last  solution  is  aftbrded  b}^  the  obvious  consideration,  that  the  multitude 
who  welcomed  Christ  as  the  Messiah  were  largely  influenced  b}^  false 
views  of  the  kingdom  about  to  be  established,  and  of  the  promised 
Idng  himself,  whom  they  regarded  as  a  conqueror  and  secular  monarch, 
by  whom  the  Jews  were  to  be  rescued  from  their  present  vassalage, 
and  raised  to  an  equality,  or  rather  a  superioritj^,  to  other  nations. 
Under  the  influence  of  such  anticipations,  and  of  our  Saviour's  mira- 
cles as  proving  him  to  be  the  Deliverer  so  long  expected,  man}^  would 
be  ready  to  espouse  his  cause  and  to  acknowledge  his  pretensions,  even 
in  defiance  of  their  theocratic  rulers.  But  when  these  secular  and 
carnal  hopes  were  disappointed,  by  his  unresisting  seizure  and  arraign- 
ment, and  his  formal  condemnation  by  the  Sanhedrim  as  an  impostor, 
there  would  naturally  be  a  great  revulsion  in  the  public  feeling  towards 
him,  which  would  no  less  naturally  lay  them  open  to  the  influence  of 
unscrupulous  and  crafty  agitators ;  and  this,  with  the  proverbial  mo- 
bility belonging  to  all  crowds,  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  alleged  inconsistency,  or  rather  to  convert  it  into  a  decisive  proof  of 
authenticity  and  truthfulness.  Released  Barabbas  to  them  (to  the 
people),  and  delivered  Jesus,  virtually  to  them  also,  but  formally  to 
the  Roman  soldiers,  who  were  to  execute  the  sentence.  Hiuing 
scourged  him  (another  word  of  Latin  origin,  see  above,  on  6,27.37. 
12,  14.)  This  was  a  cruel  and  gratuitous  addition  to  his  sufferings,  not 
peculiar  to  this  case  but  belonging  to  the  Roman  practice.  We  learn 
from  Luke  (23,  IG)  that  Pilate  had  before  proposed  this  as  a  minor  but 
sufficient  punishment  (too  much  for  one  whom  he  acknowledged  to  be 
innocent,)  but  which  he  now  inflicts  in  addition  to  the  greater,  a  fur- 
ther proof  that  his  feeble  movements  of  compassion  had  now  yielded 
to  his  selfish  fears. 

16.  And  the  soldiers  led  liim  away  into  the  hall  called 
Pretoriiim  ;  and  they  call  together  the  whole  band. 

The  soldiers,  no  doubt  those  composing  Pilate's  body  guard  and 
then  on  duty.  Led  him  cmay,  from  the  judgment-seat,  probably 
erected  in  front  of  the  house,  not  only  to  accommodate  the  scruples  of 
the  Jews  (John  18,  28,  29),  but  also  in  compliance  with  a  Roman  cus- 
tom. Josephus  speaks  of  Florus,  one  of  Pilate's  successors,  as  erecting 
his  tribunal  in  the  very  place  here  mentioned.  Into  (within,  inside  of) 
the  hall  (or  open  court,  as  in  14, 54.  66.)  Called  Fretorium,  literally, 
irJiich  is  Fretorium,  the  relative  being  of  the  neuter  gender  and  there- 
fore not  airreeing  with  //^^//..which  is  feminine  but  with  somcthino;  not 
expressed,  or,  with  the  whole  inside  of  the  court,  as  being  the  official 
residence  of  Pilatr-.  Frudtorium  is  anothei"  of  the  many  Latin  words 
18^ 


418  MARK  15,  IG.  17.  18. 

occurring;  in  this  gospel,  and  originally  means  the  tent  of  the  Prrctor 
or  conimandcr  in  an  encampment,  but  was  afterwards  extended  to  the 
official  residence  of  any  Prastor  or  Proconsul,  or  other  representative 
of  Home  in  provinces  or  conquered  countries,  as  in  Acts  23,  35  to  the 
Procurator's  residence  in  Cesarea,  and  here  to  the  corresponding  struc- 
ture in  Jerusalem,  both  of  which  were  built  by  Herod  the  Great,  the 
latter  with  great  splendour  on  the  northern  brow  of  Zion  overlooking 
the  enclosure  of  the  temple,  and  connected  with  it  by  a  bridge,  one  arch 
of  which  is  said  to  be  still  extant.  In  the  court  of  this  palace,  the 
guards  call  together  the  ichole  hanil^  cohort,  maniple,  the  Greek  word  be- 
ing used  with  great  latitude,  to  designate  larger  and  smaller  divisions  of 
the  army,  and  here  most  probably  employed  in  an  indefinite  or  relative 
sense,  to  mean  the  whole  corps  to  which  they  belonged,  whether  larger 
or  smaller. 

17.  And  they  clotliecl  liim  with  purple,  and  platted  a 
crown  of  thorns,  and  put  it  about  liis  (head). 

In  derision  of  our  Lord's  supposed  pretensions  to  compete  Avith 
earthly  sovereigns,  these  rude  Avarriors  affect  to  clothe  him  in  a  royal 
dress  and  to-  pay  him  royal  honours.  They  clothe  Mm  in  jpiirjjle^  or 
as  IMatthew  has  it,  scarlet^  the  Greek  terms  for  colour  being  very  in- 
definite, and  frequently  confounded  even  in  the  classics,  that  rendered 
purple  being  used  especially  to  designate  a  great  variety  of  shades  from 
bright  red  to  deep  blue.  But  even  if  the  word  be  taken  in  its 
modern  fixed  sense,  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the  statements, 
as  the  meaning  evidently  is,  that  they  clothed  him  in  mock-purple,  or 
in  something  to  represent  a  royal  dress,  most  probably  a  red  military 
cloak  (Matt.  27,  28),  which  would  answer  their  purpose  as  well  as  any 
thing  more  costly  or  of  a  real  purple  colour.  And  they  put  around 
Mm  (i.  e.  around  his  head),  having  woven  (it),  a  thorny  croion.  This 
is  commonly  explained  as  an  act  of  wanton  cruelty,  the  thorns  being 
intended  to  pierce  the  brow  as  commonly  exhibited  in  painting.  Some 
interpreters  suppose,  however,  that  as  nothing  is  said  of  any  such  effect, 
the  crowning  was  intended,  like  the  robing,  merely  for  derision,  and 
that  the  crown  was  made  of  thorns,  because  some  plant  of  that  kind 
happened  to  be  near  at  hand,  or  because  the  thorns  presented  the  ap- 
pearance of  some  customary  ornament  about  a  crown.  The  use  of 
some  plant  was  the  more  natural  because  the  first  crowns  were  mere 
wreaths  of  leaves  and  flowers,  such  as  those  of  palm  and  laurel,  Avorn 
by  the  victors  in  the  ancient  games. 

18.  And  began  to  salnte  Iiim,  Ilail,  King  of  the  Jews  ! 

Having  thus  pretended  to  array  him  as  a  king,  they  now  affect  to 
pay  him  homage  in  the  customary  form.  Began  to  salute  (i.  e.  to  hail 
or  recognize  him  as  a  sovereign.)  I/ail,  ix'joice,  be  happy,  the  Greek 
cquiA'alent  of  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  phrase,  Oh  king  live  forever 
(Dan.  G.  21.)     The  Icing  of  the  JeiDi<,  the  title  Avhich  he  luid  assumed. 


MAllK   15,  18-21.  419 

and  which  these  soldiers,  Hke  their  commander,  thought  supremely  ri- 
diculous, as  borne  by  such  a  person.  It  has  been  well  observed  that, 
as  the  Jews  especially  derided  his  prophetic  claims  (see  above,  on  14, 
65),  so  the  Romans  mocked  at  his  regal  pretensions. 

19.  And  tliey  smote  liim  on  the  head  with  a  reed,  and 
did  spit  upon  him,  and  bowing  (tlieir)  knees,  worshipped 
him. 

That  this  scene  was  not  mere  raillery  or  sport  but  cruel  mocking, 
is  apparent  from  the  violence  by  which  it  is  now  followed.  They  struck 
Ms  head  zoith  a  reed^  no  doubt  the  same  whicli  Matthew  (27,  29)  repre- 
sents as  having  been  put  into  his  hand  as  a  mock-sceptre.  With  these 
rough  soldiers  the  jesting  tone  is  hard  to  be  maintained,  and  soon  re- 
lapses into  bitter  earnest  or  is  mingled  with  it  in  incongruous  confusion. 
Thus,  after  violating  their  own  fiction,  by  striking  the  pretended  king 
and  spitting  on  him,  they  still  bow  the  knee  and  worship  him,  or  do 
him  reverence  as  a  real  sovereign. 

20.  And  wdien  they  had  mocked  him,  they  took  off 
the  pnrple  from  him,  and  pnt  his  own  clothes  on  him,  and 
led  him  out  to  crucify  him. 

As  this  was  only  meant  to  be  a  passing  show  or  momentary  mock- 
ery, they  soon  grew  weary  of  it,  stripped  him  of  the  temporary  purple, 
and  replaced  his  own  clothes  as  a  necessary  preparation  for  conducting 
him  to  execution ;  but  not  till  Pilate  had  exhibited  him  to  the  Jews 
without,  as  their  pretended  sovereign,  and  made  another  effort  to  de- 
liver him,  but  on  the  false  ground  of  his  insignificance  and  incapacity 
to  injure  either  Jews  or  Romans  (John  19,  4-16.)  They  lead  him  oivt^ 
i.  e.  out  of  the  city,  as  appears  to  have  been  customary  in  all  execu- 
tions, being  expressly  spoken  of  in  several  cases,  as  in  those  of  the 
blasphemer  (Lev.  24, 14),  of  Naboth  (1  Kings  21, 13),  and  of  Stephen 
(Acts  7,  58.) 

21.  And  they  compel  one  Simon  a  Cyrenian,  who 
passed  by,  coming  out  of  tlie  country,  the  father  of  Alex- 
ander and  Kufus,  to  bear  his  cross. 

They  compel^  a  Persian  word  adopted  by  the  Greeks  and  originally 
signifying  the  impressment  or  compulsory  employment  of  men,  beasts, 
and  conveyances  by  royal  couriers  in  the  Persian  empire,  secondarily 
applied  to  all  forced  assistance  or  compulsory  employment  of  any  kind 
or  for  any  purpose  (compare  its  use  in  Matt.  5,  41.)  A  certain  2JCisser- 
Jjy  (or  some  one  jKissing  by),  which  seems  to  imply  that  he  was  taken 
at  random,  without  any  special  reason  for  selecting  him,  such  as  his 
being  an  African  (from  Gyrene  on  the  north  coast),  or  a  slave,  or  a  dis- 
ciple.    From  the  field  does  not  necessarily  mean  from  work  there,  but 


420  MARK  15,  21.  22.  23. 

agreeably  to  usage  may  mean  from  the  country  into  town  (see  above, 
on  5, 14.  C.  5G.)  Mark  describes  him  more  particularly  as  the  father 
of  Alexander  and  Eifus,  no  doubt  well  known  persons  when  he  wrote, 
most  probably  among  the  Christians.  The  attempt  to  identify  these 
persons  with  tliose  named  in  Acts  13,  1.  19,  33,  Rom.  16. 13.  1  Tim.  1, 
20.  2  Tim.  4, 14  is  entirely  conjectural.  That  he  might  hear  his  cross, 
as  malefactors  usually  did,  and  as  John  (19, 17)  says  that  Jesus  did  in 
this  case.  There  are  two  ways  of  reconciling  this  apparent  contradic- 
tion ;  first,  by  supposing  that  our  Lord  did  bear  his  cross  until  he 
reached  the  city-gate  and  then  sunk  under  it.  so  that  going  forth  (Matt. 
27,  32)  they  compelled  this  stranger  to  relieve  him ;  or  secondly,  by 
supposing  that  Simon  only  lightened  the  burden  by  carrying  the  part 
of  the  cross  which  was  behind  him  (Luke  23, 2G) ;  either  of  which  ex- 
planations is  more  natural  than  the  supposition  of  a  contradiction. 

22.  And  they  bring  him  nnto  the  place  Golgotha, 
which  is,  being  interpreted,  The  place  of  a  sknlh 

Golgotha  is  an  Aramaic  form  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  s^ull.  The 
Latin  version  of  the  same  word  is  Caharium,  from  which  comes  Cal- 
vary, a  word  familiar  to  us  by  tradition,  although  not  used  in  the 
English  Bible.  Some  suppose  it  to  have  been  so  called  from  the  skulls 
of  those  who  had  been  executed  there ;  but  their  exposure  was  con- 
trary to  Jewish  usage  and  to  ceremonial  purity.  Others  suppose  the 
skulls  to  have  been  buried  ;  but  why  then  should  the  place  be  called 
from  them  any  more  than  from  other  portions  of  the  skeleton  ?  For 
these  reasons,  and  because  the  word  is  singular,  not  plural,  it  is 
now  the  prevalent  opinion,  that  the  place  was  so  named  from  its 
shape,  as  a  protuberance  or  knoll,  which  will  account  for  its  tradi- 
tional description  as  a  mount  or  mound,  but  not  a  mountain  or  a  lofty 
hill. 

23.  And  they  gave  him  to  drink  wine  mingled  with 
myrrh  ;  but  he  received  (it)  not. 

They  (the  soldiers)  gave  him  (i.  e.  oflered  to  him,  put  into  his  hand 
or  to  his  lips);  to  drink,  for  the  purpose  or  in  order  that  he  might 
partake  of  it,  myrrhcd  icine  (spiced  or  medicated  with  myrrh),  a  mix- 
ture said  to  have  been  usually  given  to  criuiinals  before  execution  for 
the  purpose  of  deadening  their  sensibility  to  pain.  A  precept  some- 
what similar  is  contained  in  the  Talmud,  apparently  founded  upon 
Prov.  31,  6.  As  the  wine  used  by  the  soldiers  was  a  clieap  sour  wine 
(called  in  Latin  ^>(?sc^/)  little  if  at  all  superior  to  vinegar,  and  as  myrrh, 
gall,  and  other  bitter  substances,  are  put  for  the  whole  class  (see  l)eut. 
29, 18.  32,  32.  Jer.  8, 14.  Lam.  3,  10.  Amos  G,  12.  I\s.  -15,  8.  Cant.  4,  6. 
14),  there  is  really  no  difTcrcnne  betwc^en  this  passage  and  the  vinegar 
oiiinglcd  iri/h  ga/l  ol'  ]\latt.  27,34.  It  is  equally  unreasonable,  there- 
fore, to  suppose  two  dill'ereut  potations  with  some  harmonists,  or  to 


MARK  15,  24.  25.  421 

allege  a  contradiction  with  some  sceptics.  Although  in  itself  an  act  of 
mercy,  yet  as  forming  part  of  the  whole  murderous  process,  it  was  a 
literal  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  in  Ps.  69.  21. 

24.  And  when  they  had  crucified  him,  they  parted  liis 
garments,  casting  lots  upon  them,  what  every  man  should 
take. 

And  having  crucified  liini^  i.  e.  nailed  him  to  the  cross,  either  before 
or  after  its  erection,  they  divide  (or  distribute)  his  garments,  which 
were  allotted,  as  they  often  are  in  modern  times,  as  a  perquisite  or  fee, 
to  the  executioners.  Garments^  clothes,  precisely  as  we  use  the  latter 
word  in  English  when  we  speak  indefinitely,  either  of  the  whole  dress, 
or  of  any  given  part,  as  in  the  more  particular  account  of  this  transac- 
tion which  has  been  preserved  by  John  (19,  20.)  This  was  another 
literal  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy  (Ps.  22, 18),  not  in  its  full  or  highest 
sense,  but  so  as  to  identify  the  person  in  whom  even  that  sense  was  to 
be  fulfilled.     (See  above,  on  11,  2.) 

25.  And  it  was  the  third  liour,  and  they  crucified  him. 

The  third  hoiir,  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning,  i.  e.  from  sun- 
rise, about  nine  o'clock  of  our  time.  But  according  to  John  (19, 14) 
it  was  already  the  sixth  hour  when  Pilate  made  his  last  attempt  to 
rescue  him.  This  discrepancy  is  of  course  regarded  by  the  sceptical 
interpreters  as  irreconcileable.  But  what  can  be  intrinsically  more  im- 
probable than  such  a  contradiction,  on  a  point  so  easily  determined, 
and  which  must  have  been  notorious  to  multitudes  ?  And  how  can  its 
escaping  observation  and  remaining  uncorrected  be  accounted  for? 
The  extreme  improbability  of  these  assumptions  would  suffice  to  jus- 
tify us  in  concluding,  that  there  must  be  some  means  of  solution,  even 
if  we  knew  not  what  it  is,  or  how  to  ascertain  it.  But  besides  this 
strong  presumption  against  a  contradiction,  thei-e  are  several  methods 
of  solution,  each  of  which  is  less  incredible  than  that  hypothesis.  The 
first  is  to  refer  the  two  specifications  of  time  to  different  events  or  in- 
cidents, Mark's  to  the  crucifixion,  Jolm's  to  the  preparation,  with 
which  they  are  respectively  connected  in  the  narrative.  The  objection 
to  this  explanation  is,  that  it  leaves  John's  statement  unexplained  and 
imintelligible,  as  the  preparation  was  a  whole  da}^  (see  below,  on  v.  42.) 
The  second  method  of  solution  understands  hour  to  be  used  by  both 
evangelists  for  a  division  of  the  day  (see  above,  on  6, 48.  13,  36),  ex- 
tending from  the  third  to  the  sixth  hour,  the  beginning  of  which  is 
mentioned  by  one  writer,  and  the  end  by  the  other.  This,  though  ad- 
missible in  case  of  exegetical  necessity,  ought  not  to  be  assumed  with- 
out it,  as  no  evidence  exists  of  any  such  usage  of  the  word  hour,  and 
the  words  do  not  naturally  suggest  this  meaning.  A  third  solution, 
much  more  probable  than  either  of  those  previously  mentioned,  is  that 
John,  writing  primarily  for  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  uses  the  Ro- 
luau  mode  of  reckoning,  i.  e.  from  midnight,  as  he  is  thought  by  some 


422  M  A  Pt  K  15,  25-28. 

to  do  elsewhere  (1,  39.  4,  6.  52.)  The  objection  that  this  would  make 
the  crucifixion  too  early,  is  greatly  weakened  by  considering,  that  our 
Lord  was  arrested  in  the  evening,  and  condemned  by  the  Sanhedrim  at 
daybreak.  The  fourth  solution  rests  upon  the  supposition  of  an  early 
error  in  transcription,  of  which  however  there  is  no  trace  in  the  oldest 
copies  extant.  But  as  these  are  at  least  four  centuries  later  than  the  date 
of  composition,  and  as  numbers  may  have  been  expressed  in  those  still 
older  by  numerical  letters,  the  signs  for  three  and  six,  being  very  much 
alike,  might  easily  be  interchanged.  What  is  most  important  here  is 
not  a  peremptory  choice  between  these  ditferent  solutions,  but  a  due 
appreciation  of  their  probability,  compared  with  the  assumption  of  a 
direct  contradiction,  unobserved  by  friends  or  foes  for  ages. 

20.  And  tlie  superscription  of  his  accusation  was  writ- 
ten over,  THE  KlKd  OF  THE  JEWS. 

The  inscj'iptlo7i  of  his  crhne  (or  accusation)  was  inscribed,  according 
to  the  Roman  custom  mentioned  by  Suetonius  and  other  writers. 
Mark  merel}^  records  the  fact  that  the  only  charge  against  him  was  his 
being  king  of  the  Jews,  a  ground  of  condemnation  so  absurd,  that  the 
Jews  themselves  would  never  have  assigned  it.  We  find  accordingly 
that  it  was  written  by  the  Roman  governor  (John  19, 19),  no  doubt  as 
a  sort  of  protest  against  such  an  execution,  not  so  much  on  account  of 
its  injustice  as  of  its  absurdity.  We  also  learn  from  the  parallel  ac- 
counts that  it  was  written  in  three  languages  (Luke  23,  38),  and  placed 
above  the  sufferer's  head  (Matt.  27,  37),  and  that  when  the  Jews  de- 
sired it  to  be  changed,  the  governor  refused  (.John  19,  21.  22.) 

27.  And  witli  liim  tliey  crucify  two  thieves,  the  one 
on  his  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  his  left. 

Two  thieves^  or  rather  roljbers  (see  above,  on  11, 17.  14,  48),  prob- 
ably associates  of  Barabbas  in  his  insurrection,  and  now  left  to  suffer 
for  it  while  their  leader  was  released.  Their  being  crucified  with  Christ 
was  not  necessarily  intended  as  an  indignity  to  him,  but  may  have  been 
in  accordance  with  the  usual  practice  of  executing  at  the  same  time 
those  who  w^cre  condemned  at  the  assizes  held  before  or  after  the  great 
festivals  (sec  above,  on  v.  1.)  They  crucify^  i.  e.  the  soldiers  charged 
by  Pilate  with  the  execution  (see  above,  on  vs.  15.  IG.)  One  from  (his) 
riyht  and  one  from  his  left  {j'^arts)^  a  peculiar  idiom  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  right  and  left  hand  (or  side)  in  English  (see  above,  on 
10,  37.  40.  12,  3G.  14,  G2.) 

28.  And  the  scripture  was  fulfilled,  which  saith,  And 
he  was  numbered  with  the  ti'ansgressors. 

This  verse  is  omitted  by  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critics, 
who  suppose  it  to  have  found  its  way  into  the  text  from  Luke  22,  37. 
Whether  geuuiue  or  not,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  indicates  a  real 


M  A  R  K  15,  28-31.  423 

fulfilment  oi  tlie  prophecy  in  Isaiah  53,  12,  although  not  exhaustive  of 
its  meaning,  as  it  includes  otner  outward  points  in  which  the  Saviour 
was  confounded  with  transgressors,  and  in  its  highest  sense  teaches  the 
great  doctrine  of  his  substitution  and  vicarious  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  men. 

29.  And  tliey  tliat  passed  by  railed  on  him,  wagging 
tlieir  heads,  and  saying,  Ah,  thou  that  destroyest  the  tem- 
ple, and  bulkiest  (it)  in  three  days. 

The  cruel  mocking  of  our  Saviour  is  continued  as  he  hangs  upon 
the  cross.  Those  2^assi7ig  J)y,  not  merely  such  as  happened  to  be  pass- 
ing when  the  crucifixion  took  place,  but  also  many  who  were  present 
for  the  purpose,  and  who  walked  to  and  fro  before  him  to  express  their 
spite  and  triumph  in  his  dying  agonies.  BlaspJiemcd  liim^  both  in  the 
lower  sense  of  railing  or  reviling,  and  in  the  higher  sense  determined  by  his 
being  a  divine  person  (see  above,  on  2,  7.  3,  28.  7,  22.)  Wagging  (literally 
moving)  their  heads,  either  laterally  (shaking  the  head)  as  a  gesture  of 
negation,  here  implying  a  denial  of  his  Messianic  character,  or  vertically 
(nodding)  as  a  gesture  of  assent  to  his  condemnation  as  a  just  one ;  or 
more  indefinitely,  with  some  motion  of  the  head  expressive  of  m;dignant 
triumph  (see  Ps.  22,  7.)  The  particular  taunt  here  recorded  has  re- 
spect to  the  specific  charge  on  which  he  was  arraigned  before  the  San- 
hedrim, and  on  which  he  would  have  been  condemned  but  for  a  failure 
in  the  testimony  (see  above,  on  14,  57-59.)  Ah,  in  Greek  oiia,  a  sort 
of  applauding  acclamation  (like  huzza  or  bravo)  used  in  the  ancient 
games,  and  here  applied  ironically  to  our  Lord,  as  one  who  had  promised 
or  threatened  more  than  ho  was  able  to  perform.  The  (one)  destroy- 
ing (throwing  down,  dismantling)  the  temxjle  (i.  e.  who  undertook  to 
do  so)  and  in  three  days  huilding  (it  again.) 

30.  Save  thyself,  and  come  down  from  the  cross. 

The  greatness  of  his  undertakings  is  contrasted  with  his  present 
helpless  state,  '  If  thou  hast  power  to  destroy  and  build  the  temple, 
thou  must  have  power  to  save  thy  own  life,  and  to  come  down  from  the 
cross  where  thou  art  hanging.'  This  allusion  to  his  own  words,  as 
misrepresented  by  the  witnesses  against  him,  seems  to  have  been 
uttered  by  the  common  people,  and  is  far  less  bitter  and  malignant  than 
that  expressed  by  their  rulers,  as  recorded  in  the  next  verse. 

31.  Likewise  also  the  chief  priests  mocking,  said  among 
themselves  with  the  scribes,  He  saved  others ;  himself  he 
cannot  save. 

These  cruel  insults,  far  from  being  confined  to  the  mere  populace 
were  carried  furthest  by  the  chief  priests,  scribes,  and  elders  (Matt.  27, 
41).  collectively  described  by  Luke  (23,  35)  as  the  rulers,  thus  impart- 
ing to  these  last  acts  of  dej-ision  the  same  national  and  public  character 


424  MARK  15,  31.  32.  33. 


which  had  been  already  ascribed  to  the  judicial  process  and  to  the 
transactions  before  Pilate,  and  also  implicating  these  representatives  of 
Israel  in  the  execution  of  our  Lord,  though  outwardly  performed  by 
Roman  soldiers.  There  is  peculiar  venom  in  the  sarcasm  uttered  by 
these  rulers,  as  it  actually  taunts  him  with  his  miracles  of  mercy,  and 
without  denying  their  reality,  exults  in  the  supposed  loss  of  his  saving 
power,  just  when  it  was  needed  for  his  own  deliverance. 

32.  Let  Christ  the  King  of  Israel  descend  now  from 
the  cross,  that  we  may  see  and  believe.  And  they  that 
were  cruciiied  with  him  reviled  him. 

This  cruel  taunt  is  followed  by  a  no  less  cruel  challenge  to  this  flilse 
Messiah,  this  pretended  king  of  Israel,  to  verify  his  claims  by  now  de- 
scending from  the  cross,  with  an  accompanying  ofter  to  acknowledge 
his  pretensions,  when  established  by  this  ocular  demonstration.  Be- 
sides the  masses  and  the  rulerSj  Mark  and  jNIatthew  (27.  44)  represent 
the  robbers  crucified  with  him  as  uniting  in  these  blasphemous  revil- 
ings,  an  act  of  desperate  malignity  which  might  appear  incredible  at 
such  a  moment,  if  analogous  examples  were  not  furnished  in  abundance 
by  the  scenes  which  still  occur  at  executions,  and  sometimes  at  the 
death-beds  of  notorious  sinners,  whose  blasphemy  and  malice  are  not 
always  silenced  even  by  the  agonies  of  dissolution.  Luke  (23,  30-43) 
represents  only  one  of  these  unhappy  wretches  as  reviling  Chi'ist,  and 
the  other  as  reproving  his  companion,  and  imploring  mercy  from  the 
Savjour,  who  receives  his  prayer.  The  seeming  inconsistency  in  these 
accounts  may  be  removed  by  supposing,  either  that  the  plural  form  in 
Mark  and  Matthew  is  generic  and  descriptive  of  the  class,  like  chief 
priests,  scribes,  and  elders,  without  excluding  individual  exceptions ;  or 
that  both  did  actually  take  part  in  the  blasphemy,  but  one  was  sud- 
denly arrested  and  converted,  as  a  trophy  of  divine  grace  even  in  what 
might  have  seemed  a  desperate  extremity.  We  are  only  concerned 
here  with  the  apparent  inconsistency;  the  details  of  Luke's  narrative 
belong  to  the  exposition  of  that  gospel. 

33.  And  when  the  sixth  hour  was  come,  there  was 
darkness  over  tlie  whole  land,  nntil  t]ie  ninth  hour. 

As  the  moment  of  the  Saviour's  death  approached,  external  nature 
displayed  tokens,  as  it  were,  of  sympathy  with  the  great  catastrophe. 
lite  sixth  liour  coming  (or  becoming,  happening,  arriving),  when  he 
had  already  hung  upon  the  cross  three  hours  (see  above,  on  v.  25), 
there  was  clarTcncss,  literally,  darl'ness  hajyjjened  (or  dcgan).  another 
form  of  the  same  verb  that  is  used  m  the  preceding  clause.  Was  over 
(or  came  vpon)  tlte  ichole  land  (of  Israel),  or  the  whole  earthy  the  Greek 
word  bearing  l^oth  translations.  As  the  latter,  however,  is  itself  re- 
stricted by  the  fact  that  it  was  dark  already  over  one  half  of  the  clobe. 
there  is  the  less  olijection  to  the  common  version,  which  confines  the 
darkness  to  the  Holy  Land,  as  the  appointed  scene  of  these  sublime 


MARK  15,  33.  34.  425 

events,  and  accounts  for  the  silence  of  contemporary  history  in  refer- 
ence to  this  darkness.  Though  the  sun  was  obscured  (Luke  23,  45),  it 
was  not  a  natural  eclipse,  which  is  excluded  by  the  full  moon  preceding 
and  determining  the  Passover.  Nor  would  the  mere  concurrence  of  a  nat- 
ural eclipse,  however  striking,  have  been  so  significant  at  this  great 
crisis,  as  an  extraordinary  obscuration,  specially  ordained  for  this  par- 
ticular occasion.  It  was  not,  however,  a  mere  transient  shadow  or  de- 
liquium  of  daylight,  but  a  darkness  oif  three  hours,  from  the  sixth  to 
the  ninth  of  the  Jewish  dav,  i.  e.  from  noon  to  three  o'clock  of  our 
reckoning,  being  half  the  time  of  the  Redeemer's  actual  suspension  and 
exposure  on  the  cross.  This  unearthly  gloom  immediately  preceded 
his  last  words  and  actions  after  a  protracted  silence. 


34:.  And  at  the  nintli  hour,  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud 

voice,  saying,  Eloi,  Eloi,  hima  sabachthani  1  which  is,  being 

interpreted,  My  God,  my   God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 

me  ? 

At  the  close  of  this  long  interval  of  darkness  and  silence,  during 
which  we  may  suppose  the  taunts  and  sneers  of  those  standing  by  to 
have  been  hushed  in  terror  and  suspense,  Jesus  speaks  again,  and  with 
a  loud  voice,  uttering  the  first  words  of  the  twenty-second  Psalm,  My 
God^  my  God^  loliy  didst  thou  forsake  (abandon,  leave)  me  ?  These 
words  are  given,  no  doubt  as  he  uttered  them,  in  Hebrew,  with  the 
single  substitution  of  one  Aramaic  synonyme  (sahachthani  for  azah- 
thani).  followed  by  the  Septuagint  version,  not  as  having  been  ut- 
tered at  the  same  time,  but  as  added  for  the  benefit  of  Gentile  readers. 
Some  regard  this  repetition  of  the  first  words  of  the  psalm  as  an  inti- 
mation that  the  whole  prophecy  which  it  contains  had  been  or  was 
about  to  be  fulfilled  in  him.  The  more  usual  and  obvious  opinion  is, 
that  he  selected  this  particular  expression,  not  because  it  was  the  first, 
or  to  represent  the  rest,  but  because  it  was  designedly  descriptive  of  the 
trial  through  which  he  had  just  passed,  as  a  state  of  actual  desertion  by 
the  Father,  in  which  lay  the  essence  or  the  height  of  his  vicarious  pas- 
sion, and  compared  with  which  his  mere  corporeal  agonies  were  nothing. 
Some  infer  from  this  use  of  the  psalm  in  question,  that  it  is  a  formal 
and  exclusive  prophecy  of  this  event,  and  that  all  its  language  has  re- 
spect to  it  directly.  Others  explain  the  psalm  as  having  primary  refe- 
rence to  David  and  his  enemies,  but  as  types  of  Christ  and  those  who 
caused  his  death.  A  third  hypothesis  divides  the  psalm  mechanically, 
as  it  were,  between  these  two  great  themes,  assigning  certain  parts  to 
each,  without  propounding  any  principle  or  rule  of  distribution.  A 
fourth  view  of  the  matter  understands  the  psalm  as  a  generic  prophecy, 
describing  what  the  righteous  as  a  class,  or  an  ideal  person  representing 
them,  must  suffer  at  the  hands  of  sinners,  and  supposes  the  description 
to  have  had  its  highest  and  most  striking  although  not  its  sole  fulfil- 
ment in  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  Common  to  all  these  exegetical 
hypotheses  is  the  assumption  of  an  original  intentional  reference  to  him, 


426  MAEK  15,  35.  36. 

and  not  a  mere  accommodation  or  perversion  of  the  language  to  another 
subject,  as  asserted  by  the  sceptical  interpreters. 

35.  And  some  of  them  that  stood  by,  when  they  heard 
(it),  said.  Behold,  he  calleth  Elias. 

The  allusion  here  is  to  the  obvious  resemblance  of  the  name  Elijah^ 
both  in  its  Greek  and  Hebrew  form,  to  the  word  which  means  my  God 
in  the  quotation  from  the  twenty-second  psalm.  This  resemblance  is 
still  stronger,  or  more  marked,  in  Matthew's  orthography  (Eli)  than 
in  Mark's  (Elol),  though  sufficiently  perceptible  in  either  to  explain 
the  speaker's  meaning  and  intention.  Some  regard  this  as  a  serious 
mistake  upon  the  part  of  those  who  stood  by,  and  who  are  then  to  be 
regarded  as  really  believing  that  the  Saviour  had  invoked  Elijah.  But 
this  is  not  a  natural  or  probable  error  in  a  Jew,  who  must  have  under- 
stood the  words,  unless  Ave  assume  that  they  were  indistinctly  uttered, 
which  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  assumption,  but  apparently  at  variance  with 
the  statement  that  he  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  implying,  in  such  a  case 
as  this,  articulate  intelligible  utterance.  Even  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  to 
whom  some  have  imputed  the  mistake,  were  as  familiar  with  the  He- 
brew text  as  modern  Jews  in  Europe  or  America.  To  the  supposition 
that  the  persons  meant  were  Roman  soldiers,  there  is  a  different  but 
no  less  obvious  objection,  namely,  that  they  would  know  nothing  of 
Elijah ;  or  if  this  be  too  much  to  assume  in  reference  to  those  who  had 
been  many  years  in  Palestine,  it  may  at  least  be  said  that  even  such 
would  scarcely  think  of  Elijah  in  the  circumstances  here  described,  and 
also  that  the  same  Ikrailiarity  with  Jewish  history  and  doctrines,  that 
would  make  the  prophet's  name  familiar,  would  prevent  its  being  thus 
confounded  with  another  well  known  formula.  On  these  grounds,  or 
on  others,  most  interpreters  are  now  agreed,  that  this  was  not  an  actual 
error,  but  a  bitter  irony  or  sarcasm,  which  affected  to  mistake  the  mean- 
ing, and  involved  at  the  same  time  an  allusion  to  the  prophecy  of 
Malachi  (4,  5),  that  Elijah  should  return  before  the  coming  of  Messiah. 
(See  above,  on  9, 11-13.) 

36.  And  one  ran  and  filled  a  sponge  full  of  vinegar, 
and  put  (it)  on  a  reed,  and  gave  him  to  drink,  saying.  Let 
alone ;  let  us  see  whether  Elias  Avill  come  to  take  him 
down. 

The  action  here  described  had  no  connection  with  our  Saviour's  cry, 
or  with  the  false  sense  put  upon  it  by  the  lookers  on,  but  was  occa- 
sioned by  his  saying,  /  thirst  (John  19,  28.)  The  one  who  ran  was 
no  doubt  one  of  the  lloman  guard  by  whom  he  had  been  crucified,  and 
the  vinegar  administered  the  sour  wine  provided  for  the  soldiers  (see 
above,  on  v.  23.  and  compare  John  19,  29.)  This  however  was  not 
drugged  or  spiced  with  gall  or  myrrh,  like  that  which  he  refused  before 
(v.  24),  because  unwilling  to  mitigate  his  suflerings  or  deaden  his  own 


MARK  15,  36.  37.  38.  427 

sense  of  them.  That  which  he  now  received  was  merely  sour  wine,  or 
wine  and  water,  or  perhaps  what  is  properly  called  vinegar,  still  used 
as  a  beverage  in  modern  as  it  was  in  ancient  times  (Ruth  2, 14.)  The 
reason  of  our  Lord's  complaint  and  draught,  and  their  connection  with 
the  completion  of  his  sacrifice,  belong  to  the  exposition  of  John's  gos- 
pel. The  circumstance  is  mentioned  here  by  JNIark,  in  order  to  com- 
plete the  cruel  jest  about  Elias.  When  in  compliance  with  his  own 
request,  one  of  the  soldiers  filled  a  sponge  with  vinegar  and  placed  it 
on  a  reed  or  stalk  of  hyssop  (John  19.  29)  and  approached  it  to  his 
mouth,  the  heartless  mockers,  far  from  being  moved  by  this  last  sign 
of  life,  called  to  the  soldier,  let  alone  (desist,  or  wait),  let  us  see  if  Elias 
comes  to  tcike  Mm  down.  As  if  they  had  said,  '  why  allay  hi«  thirst 
when  his  forerunner  is  approaching  to  dehver  and  provide  for  him "? ' 
To  this  absurd  as  well  as  wicked  jest,  the  man  appears  to  have  re- 
sponded, in  the  very  act  of  giving  him  the  vinegar,  a  circumstance 
recorded  here  by  Mark,  while  JNIatthew  (27,  49)  gives  the  language  of 
the  others,  a  variety  which  none  but  a  sceptical  interpreter  can  look 
upon  as  contradiction. 

37.  And  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up 
the  ghost. 

Emitting  a  great  voice,  not  a  mere  cry  but  an  articulate  intelligible 
utterance,  the  words  of  which  have  been  preserved  by  John  (19,  30) 
and  Luke  (23, 4G),  while  neither  Mark  nor  Matthew  records  any  of  our 
Lord's  last  sayings,  after  the  citation  from  the  twenty-second  psalm. 
The  accounts,  however,  are  entirely  consistent,  and  combined  afford  a 
series  of  dying  words,  succeeding  one  another  with  a  natural  and  per- 
fectly harmonious  connection.  Gave  up  the  ghost  is  not,  as  the  English 
reader  might  imagine,  an  exact  translation  of  some  strange  Greek 
phrase,  but  a  native  idiom  of  our  own,  corresponding  to  a  single  Greek 
word,  meaning  hreatlied  out  or  expired,  a  beautiful  substitute  for  died, 
which  all  the  evangelists  appear  to  have  avoided,  perhaps  in  order  to 
suggest  more  strongly  the  idea,  that  our  Lord's  death  was  an  act  of  his 
own  will,  as  predicted  by  himself  (John  10, 18),  and  distinctly  although 
variously  recorded  here  in  all  the  gospels.  (Compare  Matt.  27,  50. 
Luke  23,  46.  John  19,  30.) 

38.  And  the  vail  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain,  from 
the  top  to  the  bottom. 

The  restrictive  institutions  of  the  old  dispensation  being  temporary 
in  design  and  preparatory  to  the  new.  the  completion  of  the  great  work 
of  atonement  was  attended  by  a  symbolical  announcement,  that  the 
barriers  erected  in  the  ceremonial  law  were  now  cast  down,  and  free  ac- 
cess allowed  into  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  The  event  which  symbolized 
this  great  change  was  the  rending  of  the  veil  or  hanging,  which  divided 
the  Holy  Place  from  the  Most  Holy,  or  the  outer  from  the  inner  sanc- 
tuary.    As  the  whole  sanctuary,  both  in  its  moveable  and  standing 


428  MARK  15,  38.  39. 

form,  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  divine  inhabitation,  so  its  innermost 
apartment  represented  the  most  intimate  approach  to  God  and  com- 
munion with  him,  and  the  rending  of  the  veil  which  closed  the  entrance 
symbolized  the  removal  of  all  hindrances  to  such  communion,  now  ef- 
fected by  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ.  The  demand  of  the  German 
sceptics  how  this  rending  could  be  known  to  any  but  the  priests,  is 
only  equalled  by  the  answer  of  the  German  believers  that,  as  many 
priests  were  afterwards  converted  (Acts  6,  7),  it  became  generally  known 
through  them.  The  rending  is  described  with  great  particularity  by 
jNIark  and  Matthew'  (27,  51)  as  being  into  two  parts,  and  from  top  to 
bottom,  whereas  Luke  (23,  45)  simply  says  that  it  was  rent  in  the 
midst  (or  through  the  middle.)  Compare  the  allusions  to  this  veil  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (6, 19.  9,  3.  10,  20.) 

39.  And  when  the  centurion,  which  stood  over  against 
him,  saw  that  he  so  cried  ont,  and  gave  np  the  ghost,  he 
said,  Truly  this  man  was  the  Son  of  God. 

This  verse  describes  the  effect  of  Christ's  death  and  the  accompa- 
nying circumstances  on  the  Roman  officer  who  had  been  charged  with 
the  execution.  The  cc?iturion,  a  Latin  word  denoting  the  commander 
of  a  hundred  men,  but  used  with  some  degree  of  latitude  to  designate 
the  subordinate  officers  of  a  Roman  legion.  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  while  jNIatthew  and  Luke  often  use  this  title,  and  invariably  in  the 
form  of  a  Greek  translation  or  equivalent,  Mark  in  this  chapter  three 
times  has  the  Latin  word  itself,  in  strict  accordance  with  his  Latinisms 
elsewhere.  Points  of  difference,  so  slight  and  unimportant  in  them- 
selves, are,  for  that  very  reason,  the  more  likely  to  be  genuine,  or  to 
proceed  from  the  original  writer,  and  evince  not  only  the  integrity  and 
unity  of  each  composition,  but  its  authors  individuality  of  thought  and 
language,  unaffected  by  his  inspiration.  T/ie  centurion^  the  {one)  stand- 
ing hj^  over  agdinst  Mm  (or  in  front  of  him),  observing  the  whole  pro- 
cess of  his  crucifixion,  se627?^  that  so  having  cried  he  expired.  Some  of 
the  modern  writers  tr}''  to  make  this  the  ground  of  the  centurion's  con- 
fession, namely,  that  the  dying  man  could  cry  with  so  loud  a  voice ; 
whereas  the  meaning  evidently  is,  when  all  was  over,  when  this  last 
cry  had  been  uttered,  then  the  centurion  said  what  is  here  recorded. 
Truly ^  no  doubt,  certainly,  this  man^  thus  shamefully  put  to  death  as 
an  impostor,  was  innocent  of  that  charge  (Luke  23,  47),  and  was  really 
the  Son  of  God,  as  he  pretended.  As  the  article  is  wanting  before 
both  nouns,  some  translate  the  phrase,  a  son  of  a  God.  and  explain  it 
as  a  heathenish  expression,  but  on  that  account  the  more  appropriate 
in  the  mouth  of  a  Roman  soldier  Avho  knew  nothing  of  the  true  reli- 
gion. This  may  be  admitted,  as  to  the  mere  form  of  the  expression ; 
but  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  any  Roman,  of  the  rank  of  a  centurion, 
even  if  he  had  been  in  the  country'  only  a  few  da3's,  much  less  if  ho 
had  s-pent  some  years  there,  could  be  so  wholly  ignorant  of  Christ's 
pretensions,  and  of  the  sense  in  which  he  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
as  to  attach  no  other  meaning  to  the  words  than  that  suggested  by  his 


MARK  15,  40.  41.  429 

own  mythology.  He  no  doubt  spoke  in  Latin,  which  has  no  more  defi- 
nite expression  than  Filius  Dei^  the  language  having  no  such  part  of 
speech  as  the  definite  article. 

40.  41.  There  were  also  women  looking  on  afar  off, 
among  whom  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the  mother 
of  James  the  less,  and  of  Joses  and  Salome ;  who  also, 
when  he  was  in  Galilee,  followed  him,  and  ministered 
unto  him ;  and  many  other  women  which  came  np  with 
him  nnto  Jernsalem. 

Besides  the  Roman  soldiers,  whose  orders  required  them  to  witness 
the  whole  process  of  the  crucifixion,  it  was  also  witnessed  by  a  very 
different  class,  and  from  very  different  motives,  those  of  personal  in- 
terest and  strong  affection.  From  the  special  mention  of  these  two 
classes  or  spectators  of  the  tragedy,  it  is  not  improbable  that  they  alone 
were  present  during  the  whole  time,  the  remaining  multitude,  though 
vastly  numerous,  continually  fluctuating,  as  in  all  such  cases,  where 
the  show,  whatever  it  may  be,  is  prolonged  through  many  hours.  But 
who  were  they  whose  personal  attachment  to  the  sufferer  kept  them 
thus  in  sight,  though  at  a  distance,  of  his  agonies  ?  Not  the  apostles, 
whom  he  had  selected  to  be  with  him,  and  by  whom  his  kingdom  was 
to  be  erected.  With  a  single  exception  (John  19,  2G),  they  appear  to 
have  been  still  dispersed,  and  at  a  distance  from  the  scene  of  sorrow ; 
but  their  place  was  providentially  supplied  b}^  a  number  of  female 
friends  and  disciples,  who  had  come  up  with  our  Lord  from  Galilee,  and 
who  had  previously  contributed,  both  by  their  possessions  and  their 
personal  attentions,  to  his  maintenance  and  comfort.  Not  only  Mark 
and  Matthew  here  (27,  55),  but  Luke  at  an  earlier  period  of  the  his- 
tory (8, 1-3),  expressly  speak  of  these  devoted  women  as  many^  al- 
though only  few  are  named ;  so  that  this  honourable  duty  of  providing 
for  our  Saviour's  wants  was  not  monopolized  by  any  narrow  clique  or 
circle,  but  divided,  as  it  were,  among  the  body  of  his  female  followers. 
Mary  Magdalene.,  or  Mary  of  Magdala,  now  Mijdal,  on  the  west  coast 
of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  on  whom  our  Lord  had  wrought  a  signal  miracle 
of  dispossession  (Luke  8,  2),  of  itself  sufficient  to  account  for  her  devo- 
tion, though  it  sprang  no  doubt  from  a  still  higher  source  of  spiritual 
gratitude.  Tradition  has  confounded  or  identified  this  woman  with  the 
nameless  "  sinner "  in  Luke  7,  37,  and  thus  made  the  local  name  of 
Magdalen  descriptive  of  repentant  harlots,  an  assumption  perfectly  gra- 
tuitous and  possibly  calumnious  of  this  devoted  Christian.  For  although 
no  depth  of  degradation  is  beyond  the  reach  of  Christ's  compassions 
and  almighty  grace,  we  have  no  right  to  exalt  even  these  by  assuming 
a  degree  of  degradation  which  may  never  have  existed  in  the  case  sup- 
posed. Or  even  granting  the  tradition  to  be  credible  and  ancient,  we 
should  carefully  distinguish  between  any  mere  tradition  and  authentic 
history.  Mary  the  motlier  of  James  and  Joses^  mentioned  above,  in 
G,  3,  with  two  others,  as  the  brethren  of  our  Lord,  i.  e.  most  probably 


430  MARK  15,  41.  42. 

his  cousins  and  the  sons  of  Clopas  or  Alphasus  by  this  Mary,  who  is 
commonly  rcfrarded  as  the  sister  of  our  Lord's  own  mother,  uotwith- 
standing  the  identity  of  name,  but  by  some  as  the  sister  of  Joseph. 
James  the  less,  literally,  the  little,  either  in  stature  (like  Zaccheus,  Luke 
19,  3),  or  in  age,  to  both  which  the  Greek  word  is  applied  in  usage. 
Although  positive  in  form,  it  is  probably  a  relative  expression,  and  in- 
tended to  distinguish  one  James  from  another,  i.  e.  according  to  the 
prevalent  opinion,  James  the  Son  of  Alphseus  from  the  older,  larger, 
or  more  eminent  apostle  of  the  same  name.  Instead  of  Salome,  Mat- 
thew has  the  mother  of  th6  sons  of  Zeiedee,  whose  name  is  therefore 
commonly  supposed  to  be  Salome.  But  this  inference,  though  proba- 
ble, is  not  absolutely  certain,  as  the  two  evangelists  may  not  have 
named  precisely  the  same  three  out  of  the  many  Galilean  women  whom 
they  both  describe  as  present  at  the  crucifixion. 

42,  43.  And  now,  when  tlie  even  was  come,  because 
it  was  tlie  preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the  sabbath, 
Joseph  of  Arimathea,  an  hononrable  counsellor,  which 
also  waited  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  came  and  went  in 
boldly  nnto  Pilate,  and  craved  the  body  of  Jesus. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  history  more  striking  than  the  sudden 
change,  not  only  in  the  narrative,  but  in  the  incidents  themselves,  as 
soon  as  the  great  work  of  expiation  is  accomplished.  As  before  this 
every  thing  was  providentially  so  ordered  as  to  aggravate  and  almost 
to  exaggerate  our  Lord's  humiliation,  so  now  the  same  extraordinary 
providence  is  visible,  protecting  his  remains  from  profanation,  and  se- 
curing them  an  honourable  burial,  preparatory  to  his  resurrection.  The 
insults  of  the  soldiers  and  the  rabble  and  the  rulers  are  now  followed 
by  the  tenderest  attentions  of  refined  and  tender  friendship ;  the 
scourge,  the  buffet,  and  the  spittle,  by  delicate  perfumes  and  spices ; 
the  mock-robe  and  thorny  crown  by  pure  white  linen  and  a  tomb  where 
no  corpse  had  ever  rested.  The  special  divine  interposition  with  re- 
spect to  our  Lord's  burial  must  not  be  overlooked.  The  Roman  custom 
was  to  let  the  bodies  rot  upon  the  cross  and  be  devoured  by  birds  ;  but 
when  this  form  of  punishment  was  introduced  among  the  Jews,  their 
law  would  not  admit  of  this  exposure  (Deut.  21.  23),  and  it  became 
usual  to  expedite  the  death  of  those  thus  executed,  so  as  to  admit  of 
their  burial  the  same  night  in  a  promiscuous  receptacle  or  common 
grave.  There  was  therefore  every  human  probability,  that  Christ's 
limbs  would  be  broken  to  abbreviate  his  life,  and  his  body  buried  with 
the  other  convicts,  and  especially  with  those  who  suffered  at  the  same 
time,  both  which  events  would  have  seriously  interfered  with  the  de- 
sign and  the  effect  of  his  resuscitation.  But  the  first  was  prevented 
by  his  early  death,  the  more  remarkable  because  the  death  by  cruci- 
fixion was  among  the  most  lingoring  and  j)ainfid  possible,  the  frame 
being  suspended  by  sensitive  but  not  vital  parts,  and  life  destroyed,  not 
merely  by  the  wounds,  but  by  the  joint  effect  of  hunger,  thirst,  expo- 


MARK  15,  43.  44,  45.  431 


sure,  cramps  and  spasms.  The  other  profanation  was  prevented  by  an 
unexpected  movement  on  the  part  of  a  distinguished  person,  who  has 
hitherto  been  out  of  view,  though  not  inactive.  This  was  Josejjh  of 
(or  rather  from^  i.  e.  originally  from)  Arimatliea,  described  by  Luke 
(23,  51)  as  a  city  of  the  Jews,  and  identified  by  some  geographers  with 
the  Ramah  or  Ramathaim  of  1  Sam.  1, 1,  but  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
with  an  Armatha  near  Lydda.  called  Ramathem  in  Maccabees  and  Ra- 
matha  by  Josephus.  This  man  was  a  counsellor  or  senator,  not  a  local 
magistrate  of  Arimathea,  but  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  who  had 
taken  no  part  in  the  process  against  Jesus  (Luke  23,  51),  but  himself 
also  waited  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  i.  e.  expected  the  Messiah's  ad- 
vent (see  above,  on  1, 15.)  The  word  translated  honourable  has  respect 
originally  to  the  personal  appearance  and  means  handsome,  comely,  as 
in  1  Cor.  7,  35.  12,  24,  but  is  then  transferred  to  character  and  social 
position,  corresponding  very  nearly  to  resjpeetable  in  English.  This 
man,  who  had  hitherto  been  a  concealed  disciple  through  fear  of  the 
Jews,  now  comes  forward,  when  it  was  least  to  be  expected,  musters 
courage  to  go  into  Pilate's  presence,  and  asks,  as  a  gift  or  a  favour  to 
himself,  the  body  of  Jesus. 

44.  And  Pilate  marvelled  if  lie  were  already  dead ; 
and  calling  (unto  liim)  the  centurion,  he  asked  him 
whether  he  had  been  any  while  dead. 

Pilate  expresses  no  surprise  at  the  request,  nor  any  hesitation  in 
acceding  to  it,  a  result  no  doubt  secured  by  the  character  and  rank  of 
the  petitioner.  He  only  wonders  at  the  early  death,  and  even  doubts 
if  it  be  possible ;  but  having  learned  from  the  centurion,  who  had  charge 
of  the  execution,  that  he  had  been  dead  some  time,  he  gate  the  body  to 
Joseph,  not  delivered  or  transferred  it  merely,  but,  as  the  Greek  word 
properly  denotes,  made  him  a  present  of  it,  no  doubt  in  allusion  to  the 
frequent  practice,  probably  well  known  to  Pilate's  own  experience,  of 
receiving  money  from  the  friends  of  executed  criminals,  to  spare  them 
the  dishonour  of  exposure  or  promiscuous  burial. 

45,  46.  And  when  he  knew  (it)  of  the  centurion,  he 
gave  the  body  to  Joseph.  And  he  bonglit  fine  linen,  and 
took  him  down,  and  wraj^ped  him  in  the  linen,  and  laid 
him  in  a  sepulchre  which  was  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  and 
rolled  a  stone  unto  the  door  of  the  sepulchre. 

Besides  the  facts  which  Mark  here  mentions,  that  the  body  was 
taken  from  \he  cross,  wrapped  in  linen,  and  laid  in  a  tomb  hewn  in  the 
rock,  no  doubt  a  lateral  excavation,  and  a  stone  rolled  against  the 
opening ;  we  learn  from  Matthew  (27,  GO)  that  the  tomb  was  Joseph's 
own,  which  he  had  recently  prepared ;  from  Luke  (23,  53)  that  it  had 
never  yet  been  used;  and  from  John  (19,  41)  that  it  was  in  a  garden, 
at  or  near  the  place  of  crucifixion.     Both  Mark  (v.  42)  and  John  (19, 


432  MARK  15,  46.  47. 

42)  mention,  that  it  was  the  preparation,  that  is,  immediately  before 
the  sabbath,  which  began  at  sunset,  so  that  a  speedy  burial  was  neces- 
sary to  avoid  a  violation  of  the  law ;  and  therefore,  as  this  tomb  was 
neai"  at  hand,  the  body  was  immediately  conveyed  there,  these  apparent 
accidents  contributing  not  only  to  its  preservation  from  dishonour  but 
to  the  fulfilment  of  two  prophecies,  the  one  that  his  bones  should  not 
be  broken  (Ps.  34, 20),  and  the  other,  that  though  joined  with  the 
wicked  in  his  death,  he  should  be  buried  with  the  rich  or  noble  (Isai. 
53,  9.) 

47.  And  Maiy  Magdalene  and  Mary  (tlie  mother)  of 
Joses  belield  where  he  was  laid. 

The  last  fact  which  Mark  here  mentions  is  that  two  of  the  women 
named  in  v.  40,  both  called  Mary,  were  spectators  of  Christ's  burial, 
as  well  as  of  his  death,  observing  where  he  was  deposited,  to  which 
Matthew  (27,  61)  adds,  that  they  sat  down  before  the  tomb,  and  Luke 
(23, 56)  that  they  afterwards  procured  spices,  to  be  used  upon  the 
body  of  their  master,  after  the  sabbath  which  they  religiously  observed. 


-♦♦•- 


CIIAPTEE   XYI. 

The  remaining  topics  are  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension,  with  the  in- 
termediate appearances  of  Christ  to  his  disciples  and  his  commission  to 
the  twelve  apostles.  The  confusion  which  confessedly  exists  in  this 
part  of  the  gospel  narrative,  and  the  consequent  difficulty  of  reducing 
it  to  one  continuous  account,  is  not  the  fault  of  the  historians,  but  the 
natural  effect  of  the  events  themselves,  as  impressed  upon  the  senses 
and  the  memory  of  different  witnesses.  If  it  had  pleased  God  to  in- 
spire a  single  writer  as  the  historian  of  the  resurrection,  he  would  no 
doubt  have  furnished  as  coherent  and  perspicuous  a  narrative  as  any 
other  in  the  sacred  volume.  But  since  it  entered  into  the  divine  plan, 
as  a  necessary  element,  to  set  before  us  not  a  single  but  a  fourfold  pic- 
ture of  our  Saviour's  life  and  death,  we  must  purchase  the  advantage 
of  this  varied  exhibition,  by  submitting  to  its  incidental  inconveniences, 
among  which  is  the  difficulty,  just  referred  to,  of  combining  all  these 
views,  taken  from  diflerent  points  of  observation,  into  one  complete  view 
to  be  seen  at  the  same  moment.  The  historical  problem  is  as  hard  to 
solve  as  the  pictorial,  not  more  so,  and  the  seeming  inconsistencies,  re- 
sulting from  the  effort  to  amalgamate  the  narratives,  ought  no  more  to 
destroy  our  faith  in  their  eventual  harmony,  than  similar  points  of  dis- 
agreement, in  four  photographic  views  of  the  same  edifice  or  landscape, 
ought  to  make  us  question  either  the  identity  of  the  object  or  the  ab- 
SiOlutc  truth  of  the  delineation.     A  large  part  of  the  difficulty,  practi- 


MARK  IG,  1.  4 


cally  felt  as  to  the  gospels,  has  arisen  from  the  error  of  attempting  the 
impossible,  to  wit,  the  resolution  of  four  landscapes  into  one,  and  the 
effort  to  improve  upon  God's  method  of  exhibiting  this  part  of  saving 
truth,  instead  of  thankfully  resting  in  the  apostolic  dictum,  that  "the 
foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men"  (1  Cor.  1.25.)     The  extent  to 
which  these  harmonistic  methods  have  been  carried,  has  produced  a 
natural  though  not  a  rational  reaction  towards  the  opposite  extreme  of 
denying  all  consistency  and  unity  in  these  inspired  variations  of  a  single 
theme,  and  converting  even  incidental  proofs  of  oneness  into  pretended 
proofs  of  contradiction.     Between  these  extremes  of  error,  as  in  multi- 
tudes of  other  cases,  there  is  happily  a  middle  course  of  truth  and 
moderation,  which,  refusing  to  reject  the  tokens  either  of  essential  har- 
mony or  unessential  variation,  endeavours  to  account  for  every  seem- 
ing inconsistency,  and  yet  to  leave  each  narrative  in  undisturbed  pos- 
session of  its  characteristic  and  designed  peculiarities.     These  views, 
which  have  already  been  presented  in  their  substance  and  applied  to 
the  whole  history,  are   here  repeated  as  peculiarly  appropriate  to  this 
concluding  portion,  in  which  the  variations  are  more  numerous  and 
striking  than  in  any  other  passage  of  the  same  length,  and  in  which  the 
opposite  extremes  of  sceptical  and  harmonistic  method  are  presented  in 
the  most  revolting  contrast.     While  apparent  contradictions  between 
jNIark's  brief  narrative  and  those  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  may  be 
readily  removed  by  fair  comparison  and  natural  hypotheses,  such  as 
all  involuntarily  assume  in  weighing  evidence  relating  to  the  common- 
place affairs  of  life,  it  is  still  more  important  to  detect,  if  possible,  the 
grounds  on  which  he  has  selected  and  arranged  his  facts,  as  furnishing 
a  key  to  their  correct  interpretation  and  appreciation.     Such  a  key  is  af- 
forded by  the  simple  suggestion,  that  in  this  account  of  the  Saviour's 
resurrection  and  subsequent  appearances,  a  specific  purpose  of  the  writer 
is  to  point  out  the  successive  steps,  by  which  the  incredulity  of  the 
apostles  was  at  length  subdued,  and  their  minds  prepared  for  the  re- 
ception and  the  execution  of  their  great  comm.ission.     These  successive 
steps  or  stages  are:  his  message  by  the  company  of  women  (1-8); 
that  by  Mary  Magdalene   (9-11);   that  by  the  two   disciples  jour- 
neying to  Emmaus  (12-13)  ;    his   final  appearance   to   the   apostolic 
body  (14) ;  followed  by  the  great  commission  (15-18),  the  ascension 
(19),  and  the  execution  of  these  farewell  orders  (20.)     The  reader 
will  do  well  to  bear  in  mind  the  close  concatenation  of  these  topics, 
when  he  comes  to  the  question  with  respect  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
last  twelve  verses  (see  below,  on  v.  9.) 

1.  And  wJien  tlie  sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene, 
and  Maiy  the  (mother)  of  James,  and  Salome,  had  bought 
sweet  spices,  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him. 

In  execution  of  the  purpose  just  ascribed  to  the  evangelist,  he  de- 
scribes the  first  intimation  of  our  Saviour's  resurrection  which  reached 
the  apostles.    This  consisted  of  a  declaration  made  by  an  angel  to  three 
women  at  the  sepulchre,  and  a  message  sent  through  them  to  the 
19 


434  M  A  R  K  IC,  1.  2. 

eleven  (1-8.)  The  saMatli  leing  past  (or  more  exactly,  througli) 
implies  what  is  expressly  said  by  Luke  (23,  56),  that  notwithstanding, 
their  desire  to  pay  the  last  permitted  honours  to  the  body  of  their  Lord, 
"  they  rested  the  sabbath-day  according  to  the  commandment."  The 
women  named  are  those  who  had  been  previously  mentioned  (15,  40) 
as  spectators  of  the  crucifixion,  and  two  of  them  again  (15,  47)  as  wit- 
nessing his  burial.  Though  only  the  two  JNIaries  are  here  named  by 
Matthew  (28, 1),  and  only  one  of  them  by  John  (20, 1),  and  none  of 
them  by  Luke  (24.  1),  who  merely  continues  what  he  had  been  saying 
of  the  Galilean  women  (23,  56),  and  adds  some  (or  certain)  with  them  ; 
it  is  evident  that  all  this  is  nothing  more  than  a  striking  instance  of 
harmonious  variation,  the  accounts  differing  only  in  minuteness  and 
precision.  The  essential  fact,  which  Mark  here  brings  out,  is  that  the 
first  intimation  of  Christ's  being  risen  was  made  to  women  at  the  sepul- 
chre. After  naming  the  three  leaders  or  most  active  members  of  the 
company,  he  states  their  errand  or  the  object  of  their  early  visit.  They 
'brought  siyices  (in  Greek  aromata)^  when  is  not  here  said,  although  the 
obvious  construction  of  the  sentence  is  that  they  did  so  after  the  sab- 
bath was  past,  and  as  this  came  to  an  end  at  sunset,  they  might  easily 
have  done  so  afterw^ards,  so  as  to  have  them  ready  for  use  early  the 
next  morning.  The  statement  of  Luke  (23,  56)  is  equally  indefinite  as 
to  the  precise  time  of  these  purchases,  which  might  be  mentioned  be- 
fore their  observance  of  the  sabbath,  though  it  took  place  after  it.  The 
representation  of  the  two  accounts  as  contradictory  is  not  only  ground- 
less but  unfair,  and  as  such  to  be  rejected.  That  they  might  anoint  him 
is  usually  understood  of  embalming  for  the  preservation  of  the  body, 
which  would  imply  the  absence  of  all  hope  as  to  his  resurrection.  But 
as  embalming  in  the  proper  sense  was  not  a  Jewish  practice  (as  to  John 
19,  40,  see  above,  on  14,  8),  and  was  the  work  rather  of  physicians 
than  of  women  (compare  Gen.  50,  2),  and  as  the  aromatic  substances 
here  mentioned  were  suited  only  for  external  application,  it  is  on  the 
whole  most  probable  that  they  intended  merely  to  express  afiection 
and  respect  by  outward  unction,  just  as  another  JMary  had  done  during 
her  Lord's  lifetime  (14,  8.) 

2.  And  very  early  in  the  morning,  tlie  first  (day)  of 
the  week,  they  came  nnto  the  sepnlchre  at  the  rising  of 
tlie  snn. 

The  precise  time  of  their  coming  for  this  purpose  is  described  by 
Mark  as  tery  early  on  tlie  first  day  of  the  iceeh^  which  agrees  with  the 
parallel  accounts,  even  the  added  words,  at  the  rising  of  the  sun  (liter- 
ally, the  sun  having  risen),  being  really  no  more  at  variance  with  the 
others  than  with  jNlark's  own  words ;  and  he  surely  cannot  be  sup- 
posed to  contradict  himself.  The  expressions  may  be  fully  reconciled, 
either  by  referring  them  to  different  arrivals,  not  distinctly  mentioned, 
or  from  the  usage  known  to  various  languages,  which  takes  dawn  and 
sunrise  indefinitely,  as  descriptive  of  the  same  time,  namely,  early  morn- 


MARK  16,  3.  4.  5.  435 

ing.  and  of  which  examples  have  been  cited  from  Judges  9,  33.  Ps. 
104,  22,  and  the  Septuagiut  version  of  2  Sam.  23,  4.  2  Kings  3,  22. 

3.  4.  And  they  said  among  tlieniselves,  Who  shall  roll 
us  away  the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre?  And 
when  they  looked,  tliey  saw  that  the  stone  was  rolled 
away  ;  for  it  w^as  very  great. 

The  evangehst  relates  the  conversation  of  the  women  on  their  way 
to  the  sepulchre  of  Christ,  when  they  seem  to  have  considered,  for  the 
first  time,  how  they  should  gain  access  to  the  tomb,  which  was  secured 
by  a  great  stone  or  rock,  placed  against  or  in  the  entrance  of  the  exca- 
vation (see  above,  on  15,  46.)  But  on  arriving  at  the  spot,  they  find 
the  obstruction  already  removed.  Wheii  they  looJced,  literally,  loohing 
up^  implying  that  their  eyes  before  were  downcast  (compare  Luke  24,  5) 
and  their  thoughts  absorbed  in  the  subject  of  their  conversation.  They 
hehold  (with  surprise)  that  the  stone  has  deen  rolled  aicay,  the  present 
tense  describing  the  whole  scene  as  actually  passing.  The  concluding 
words  (foj'  it  was  great  exceedingly)  have  reference,  not  to  what  im- 
mediately precedes,  but  to  their  anxious  thoughts  and  consultations. 
This  connection  is  made  clear  by  a  parenthesis  in  most  editions ;  but  the 
original  construction  is  what  the  Greek  grammarians  called  a  hysteron 
proteron^  or  grammatical  inversion,  when  the  writer  goes  back  and 
supplies  a  word  or  clause  omitted  in  its  proper  place.  As  if  he  had 
said,  '  they  asked  who  would  roll  the  stone  away,  and  when  they  came 
found  it  rolled  away  already,  which  was  a  sensible  relief,  for  it  was  very 
large.' 

5.  And  entering  into  the  sepulchre,  they  saw  a  young 
man  sitting  on  the  right  side,  clothed  in  a  long  white  gar- 
ment ;  and  they  were  affrighted. 

From  what  is  here  said  it  is  clear  that  Joseph's  sepulchre  was  not 
a  mere  grave,  but  a  spacious  vault  or  excavation,  such  as  men  provided 
for  themselves  and  for  their  families  (compare  Isai.  22,  16),  and  of 
which  there  are  specimens  still  extant  in  the  rocks  about  Jerusalem. 
A  young  man,  in  Greek  a  single  word  meaning  youth,  here  described 
as  he  appeared  to  the  women,  but  by  Matthew  (28,  1.  5)  as  an  angel 
of  the  Lord,  who  had  descended  from  heaven,  rolled  away  the  stone, 
and  sat  upon  it.  There  is  something  puerile  in  the  attempt  to  repre- 
sent this  as  a  contradiction,  since  it  is  not  necessarily  implied  that  he  re- 
mained in  that  position,  nor  in  JNIark's  account  that  he  was  inside  of 
the  sepulchre,  but  only  that  the  women,  as  they  went  in,  saw  him 
sitting  on  the  right  hand,  perhaps  at  the  entrance,  and  upon  the  stone 
which  he  had  just  removed.  The  difference  in  relation  to  the  number 
of  the  angels  is  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the  demoniacs  of  Gadara  (see 
above,  on  5.  2),  and  of  the  blind  men  healed  at  Jericho  (see  above,  on 
10,  40),  except  that  JMatthew  here  records  but  one,  and  the  plurality 


436  MARK  10,  5.  G.  7. 

belongs  to  Luke  (23,  4),  which  does  not  favour  the  idea,  entertained 
by  some,  that  Matthew  naturally  saw  things  double,  or  combined  them 
into  pairs.  It  was  sufficient  for  Mark's  purpose  to  describe  the  angel 
who  addressed  the  women,  and  thus  took  the  leading  part  in  this 
transaction.  Clothed,  literally,  cast  ahoitt,  enveloped,  wrapped,  the 
same  verb  and  the  same  construction  as  in  14,  51.  TF/w^^,  denoting  not 
mere  colour  but  a  supernatural  effulgence,  as  in  9,  3.  Affrighted,  both 
astonished  and  alarmed,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above,  in  9, 15. 
14,  33,  and  a  strengthened  form  of  that  in  1,  27.  10,  24.  32.  It  hero 
expresses  not  mere  fright,  but  that  peculiar  awe  which  may  be  sup- 
posed to  spring  from  the  sight  of  a  superior  being. 

6.  And  he  saitli  unto  tliem,  Be  not  aiFriglited  ;  ye  seek 
Jesus  of  JSTazaretli,  wliicli  was  cruciiied  ;  he  is  risen  ;  he 
is  not  here  ;  behold  the  place  where  they  laid  him. 

The  language  of  the  angel  is  encouraging  and  re-assuring ;  he  antici- 
pates their  anxious  inquiries  for  the  Saviour,  and  informs  them  of  his 
resurrection.  Jesus  the  Nazarene,  the  crucified,  is  not  a  mere  descrip- 
tion of  the  person,  but  a  pointed  allusion  to  his  extreme  humiliation, 
summed  up  in  the  name  Nazarene  (Matt.  2,  23),  and  terminating  in 
his  crucifixion.  '  You  are  looking  for  the  body  of  that  scorned  and 
persecuted  Galilean,  whom  the  Jews  so  lately  put  to  an  ignominious 
and  painful  death  ;  but  you  are  come  too  late,  he  is  no  longer  here  ;  ho 
has  awaked  from  the  sleep  in  which  you  thought  him  sunk  forever ;  so 
that  now  3^ou  can  find  nothing  but  the  spot  which  he  occupied  during 
his  brief  death  and  burial.'  Gracious  and  soothing  as  these  words  arc, 
they  are  not  without  a  slight  tone  of  reproach,  that  those  who  loved 
the  Son  of  Man  so  well  and  had  attended  so  long  on  his  teaching, 
should  look  upon  his  case  as  one  of  natural  mortality,  and  come  to 
honour  his  remains,  but  not  to  witness  his  resuscitation. 

7.  But  go  yonr  way,  tell  his  disciples  and  Peter,  that 
he  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee  ;  tliere  shall  ye  see  him, 
as  he  said  unto  you. 

It  was  not  for  the  relief  and  consolation  of  these  pious  women 
only  or  chiefly,  that  the  messenger  from  heaven  spoke,  but  through 
them  to  the  body  of  Apostles,  or  disciples  in  the  strictest  sense,  and  es- 
pecially to  Peter,  who,  notwithstanding  his  denial  of  his  master,  was  to 
be  restored,  not  only  to  his  place  as  an  apostle,  which  indeed  he  had 
not  lost,  but  to  his  old  precedence  as  the  representative  and  spokesman 
of  his  brethren.  (Compare  John  21,  15-17.  Acts  1, 15.  2, 14.  38.  3, 
G,  12.  4,  8.  5,  3.  8.  20.)  Go  your  icay,  in  modern  English  go  away,  in 
Greek  a  single  word,  depart,  begone,  impljnng  that  they  had  no  time 
to  lose  and  that  their  presence  was  required  elsewhere.  Having,  as  it 
were,  supplied  the  place  of  the  apostles  during  their  defection  (see 
above,  on  15,  40.  47),  these  devoted  women  are  now  commissioned  to 


MARK  16,  7.  8.  437 

recall  them  to  their  duty,  by  reminding  them  of  an  appointment  made 
by  Christ  before  he  suffered  (see  above,  on  14,  28),  but  which  they  had 
forgotten  in  the  sorrow  and  confusion  caused  by  the  literal  fulfilment 
of  those  prophecies  respecting  his  own  death  which  they  had  probably 
regarded  as  mere  parables.  The  confusion  of  mind  thus  produced  ap- 
pears to  have  prevented  their  perceiving  or  remembering,  that  the  same 
predictions  had  foretold  his  resurrection,  which  had  now  come  to  pass 
accordingly,  and  of  which  the  angel  here  directs  the  woman  to  inform 
them,  not  directly,  but  by  saying  that  the  Lord  was  ready  to  fulfil  his 
pledge,  by  going  before  them  into  Galilee.  This  might  seem  to  mean 
that  he  would  actually  go  there  as  of  old  at  their  head,  and  as  their 
literal  leader ;  but  we  learn  from  John  (21,  1-11),  and  Matthew  (28, 
10-18),  that  he  joined  them  after  their  arrival,  and  may  therefore  take 
the  words  before  us  in  the  equally  legitimate  sense,  that  he  would  be 
in  Galilee  before  them,  i.  e.  they  would  find  or  meet  him  there,  on  their 
return  home  from  the  passover.  There  sliall  ye  see  him,  as  he  said  to 
yoK,  referring  to  the  promise  and  appointment  made  on  his  way  from 
the  upper  chamber  in  Jerusalem  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  (see 
above,  on  14,  28.) 

8.  And  tliey  went  out  qnicldy,  and  lied  from  the  sep- 
ulchre ;  for  they  trembled,  and  were  amazed  :  neither 
said  they  any  thing  to  any  (man),  for  they  were  afraid. 

Going  out  they  (not  merely  walked,  or  even  ran,  but)  fled  from  the 
sepulchre.  The  next  words  do  not  formally  assign  a  reason  for  their 
flight,  but  continue  the  description,  and  (not/br)  tremor  and  ecstasy 
(trembling  and  amazement,  see  above,  on  5,  42).  had  (held  or  pos- 
sessed) them.  Taken  by  itself,  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  would  seem 
to  mean  that  the  women,  in  their  terror  and  confusion,  did  not  deliver 
the  angelic  message  to  the  eleven.  But  as  the  natural  effect  of  their 
alarm  would  be  the  opposite  of  this ;  as  it  is  not  easy  to  see  what  they 
had  to  fear  from  making  the  communication  ;  and  as  Matthew  speaks 
expressly  twice  (28,  10.  11)  of  their  going  to  report  to  the  disciples  ; 
all  ordinary  laws  of  language  and  of  evidence  not  only  suffer  but  re- 
quire us  to  understand  the  clause  as  an  additional  description  of  their 
haste  and  agitation,  treniblbig  and  amazement  seized  them,  and  to  no 
one  they  said  nothirig.  for  they  icere  afraid,  not  afraid  to  speak,  but  so 
alarmed  at  the  vision  and  the  words  of  the  angel,  that  they  did  not  stop 
to  speak  to  any  one,  but  hurried  to  convey  his  message.  As  Mark  is 
not  relating  all  these  movements  in  detail,  but  simpl}"  enumerating  the 
successive  intimations  made  to  the  eleven  of  their  Master's  resurrec- 
tion, he  proceeds  no  further  with  the  first,  but  passes  to  the  second  in 
the  next  verse. 

9,  Now  wlien  (Jesns)  was  risen  early,  the  firpt  (dny) 
of  the  week,  lie  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  out  of 
whom  he  had  cast  seven  devils. 


438  MARK  IG,  9.  10. 


Althoiigli  jMai'}^  Magdalene  was  one  of  the  three  women  named  by- 
three  of  the  evangehsts,  as  coming  early  to  anoint  the  body  of  the 
Lord,  two  of  them  afterwards  appear  to  separate  her  from  the  rest 
and  introduce  her  alone  in  a  part  of  the  ensuing  transactions.  This  is 
understood,  by  some  of  the  best  modern  writers,  as  implying  that,  al- 
though she  came  with  the  other  women  to  the  tomb,  she  remained 
behind  when  they  had  fled,  pursuing  her  inquiries  for  the  body  of  her 
Lord,  and  was  consequently  honoured  with  a  second  vision  of  angels 
and  a  sight  of  Christ  himself.  This  is  related  in  detail  by  John  (20, 
11-18),  and  very  compendiously  by  Mark,  who  reckons  this  his  lirst 
appearance,  cither  absolutely  or  in  reference  to  his  own  selection  and  ar- 
rangement of  the  facts.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  Mary  Magda- 
lene's devotion  to  the  Saviour,  and  perhaps  for  the  honour  put  upon  her 
by  this  special  appearance  to  herself  alone.  There  is  then  no  ground 
for  the  assertion,  that  she  is  introduced  here  as  a  personage  who  had 
not  been  previously  mentioned,  which  has  been  used  to  corroborate  the 
fashionable  modern  notion,  that  this  and  the  following  verses  are  a 
spurious  addition  to  the  gospel  by  a  later  hand.  The  external  evidence 
relied  upon  is  the  omission  of  the  passage  in  the  Vatican  manuscript, 
and  some  indications  of  doubt  as  to  its  genuineness  in  several  other 
ancient  critical  authorities.  In  support  of  the  foregone  conclusion 
thus  reached,  German  ingenuity  has  not  failed  to  detect  internal  indi- 
cations of  a  different  writer,  such  as  the  absence  of  Mark's  favourite 
expressions,  and  the  use  of  several  not  found  elsewhere  in  his  Gospel. 
The  futility  of  such  a  process,  when  applied  to  a  dozen  sentences,  if 
not  self-evident,  may  easily  be  made  plain  by  applying  it  to  an  equal 
part  of  any  other  book,  and  observing  how  triumphantly  the  same 
thing  may  be  proved  in  any  case  whatever.  The  folly  of  supposing 
that  the  gospel  ended  with  the  word  for  (icfio^ovvTo  ydp,  v.  Sj,  has  led 
to  the  more  complex  hypothesis  of  a  genuine  conclusion  now  lost  and 
replaced  by  that  before  us,  which  some  ascribe  to  Mark  himself 
but  at  a  later  date.  But  to  most  minds  this  assumption  will  seem  far 
less  easy  to  believe,  than  the  simple  supposition,  that  the  actual  conclu- 
sion is  the  one  originally  written,  not  only  in  direct  continuation  of 
what  goes  before,  but  in  execution  of  a  plan  which  runs  through  the 
whole  chapter,  and  has  been  already  stated  in  the  introduction  to  it. 

10.  (And)  slie  went  and  told  tlieni  that  had  been  with 
him,  as  they  mourned  and  wept. 

It  appears  from  this  verse,  that  the  case  of  Mary  Magdalene  was 
mentioned,  only  as  a  second  intimation  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  made 
to  his  apostles ;  for  as  soon  as  she  had  seen  and  heard  him,  as  related 
in  detail  by  John,  she  went  and  reported  to  the  disciples  (John  21, 18), 
or  as  it  is  here  expressed,  to  those  who  had  Ijeeii  with  him,  that  he  Avas 
alive,  and  what  he  had  said  to  her.  One  of  the  arguments  against  the 
genuineness  of  these  versos  is  the  use  of  iViis  unusual  expression,  tliose 
who  hud  been  with  him,^  although  perfectly  appropriate  and  more  ex- 
pressive than  John's  term  {discipUh).  because  suggeotive  of  the  fact 


MARK  IG,  10.  11.  12.  439 

that  they  had  formerly  been  with  him,  but  had  since  forsaken  him, 
and  been  far  from  him.  at  tlie  very  time  when  their  presence  and  at- 
tentions seemed  to  be  most  needed.  As  they  mourned  and  icept,  liter- 
ally, mourning  and  iceeinng^  as  they  might  have  done  for  any  human 
friend,  whose  loss  they  thought  irreparable.  This  untimely  sorrow, 
at  the  very  time  when  they  should  have  been  rejoicing,  shows  their 
faith  and  hope  to  have  been  shamefully  defective,  as  appears  still  fur- 
ther in  the  next  verse. 

11.  And  they,  when  they  had  heard  that  he  was  alive, 
and  had  been  seen  of  her,  believed  not. 

So  little  prepared  were  the  eleven  for  the  very  change  which  Christ 
had  clearly  and  repeatedly  predicted,  that  when  Mary  came  to  them 
with  this  new  message,  and  her  own  direct  testimony  to  the  fact  that 
he  was  risen  and  had  appeared  to  her,  it  had  no  more  effect  upon  them 
than  the  previous  report  of  her  companions,  who  had  gone  with  her  to 
the  grave,  and  after  leaving  her  appear  to  have  been  favoured  with  a 
distinct  sight  of  the  risen  Saviour  (Matt.  28,  9. 10.)  Believed  not  is 
in  Greek  still  stronger,  being  one  compound  verb  which  might  be  ren- 
dered disbelieved,  or  as  it  is  expressed  by  Luke  (24,  11),  it  seemed  to 
them  as  idle  talk  or  nonsense.  Such  a  state  of  mind  may  seem  almost 
incredible  ;  but  it  must  be  remembered,  that  all  depended  on  a  fixed 
conviction  that  the  death  which  he  predicted  was  not  to  be  literally 
understood,  so  that  when  it  did  take  place,  they  could  not  instan- 
taneously adjust  their  views  and  feelings  to  this  great  and  sudden 
change,  but  simply  abandoned  all  their  previous  hopes,  and  sunk  into 
an  impotent  despairing  sorrow. 

12.  After  that,  he  appeared  in  another  form  unto  two 
of  them,  as  they  walked,  and  went  into  the  country. 

As  if  to  punish  them  for  their  defection  and  stupidity,  and  per- 
haps to  avoid  a  similar  revulsion  in  the  opposite  direction,  our  Lord 
did  not  appear  at  once  to  the  eleven,  but  prepared  them  for  the  sight 
by  these  repeated  messages  through  others.  At  the  same  time,  he  re- 
warded the  affectionate  fidelity  and  stronger  faith  of  his  devoted  female 
fjiends,  by  making  them  the  channels  of  the  two  communications 
which  have  been  already  mentioned.  That  this  privilege,  however, 
was  not  to  be  limited  to  either  sex,  is  now  shown  by  the  mention  of  a 
third  intimation  made  to  ttco  of  tliem,  not  two  of  the  eleven  (as  appears 
from  Luke  24,  33),  but  two  from  among  the  disciples  in  the  wider  sense, 
to  whom  the  description  in  the  preceding  verse  {mourning  and  ^oeeii- 
ing)  must  be  understood  as  extending.  The  meagre  summary  of  which 
sonic  writers  here  complain  is  as  perfectly  in  keeping  with  Mark's  j>nr- 
pose  in  this  chapter,  as  the  rich  detail  of  Luke  (24, 13-35)  with  his 
design.  The  only  discrepancy  which  has  been  alleged  is  Mark's  saying 
that  our  Lord  appeartd  to  them  in  another  J'orni^  while  Luke  says  tiiat 


440  MARK  IC,  13.  14. 

their  eyes  icere  liolden  that  they  should  not  Tcnoio  him.    The  one  gives 
the  cause  and  the  other  the  effect. 

13.  And  tliey  went  and  told  (it)  imto  the  residue ; 

neither  believed  they  them. 

And  tliey^  the  two  disciples  mentioned  in  the  verse  preceding,  going 
aiDCiy^  I.  e.  back  to  Jerusalem  instead  of  going  on  to  Emmaus  (Luke 
13,  33),  re^wrted^  carried  back  word  (as  in  v.  10,  and  in  G,  30)  to  the 
rest^  to  those  remaining  in  the  Holy  City,  but  with  special  reference 
no  doubt  to  the  apostles,  as  their  representatives  and  leaders,  whose  in-' 
credulity  was  more  unpardonable  in  itself,  and  at  the  same  time  hurtful 
to  the  faith  of  others.  Neitlier  them  (or  not  even  theni)  did  they  Re- 
lieve, an  emphatic  expression,  not  implying  that  these  witnesses  were 
more  entitled  to  belief  than  those  before  them,  but  referring  simply  to 
the  circumstance,  that  this  was  the  third  mediate  intimation  of  the 
great  event,  and  that  even  this,  although  the  third,  was  insuihcient  to 
command  their  full  belief;  so  that  the  defect  of  faith  afterwards  re- 
buked in  Thomas  (John  20,  27.  29)  was  here  displaj^ed,  though  in  a 
less  degree,  by  the  entire  apostolic  body,  and  could  only  be  removed 
by  the  immediate  attestation  which  is  recorded  in  the  next  verse. 

14:.  Afterward  he  appeared  nnto  the  eleven,  as  they 
sat  at  meat,  and  upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief  and 
hardness  of  heart,  because  they  believed  not  them  which 
had  seen  him  after  he  was  risen. 

Afterward,  in  Greek  an  adjective  in  the  comparative  degree,  mean- 
ing latej\  latter,  the  neuter  form  of  which,  as  of  many  other  adjectives, 
is  used  as  an  adverb.  Though  it  does  not  of  itself  mean  last,  for  which 
there  is  a  separate  superlative  form  (vcrraTov,  not  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament), it  often  virtually  takes  that  meaning  from  the  context,  namely, 
when  connected  with  the  close  of  a  distinctly  marked  series  or  succes- 
sion of  particulars  (as  in  Matt.  21,37.  22,27.  2G,  GO.)  Tliis  is  also 
the  case  here,  and  a  point  of  some  importance  to  the  emphasis  if  not 
the  meaning  of  the  i)assage,  as  it  marks  not  a  mere  chronological  suc- 
cession, but  a  climax  or  complete  gradation  in  the  disclosure  of  the 
Saviour's  resurrection  to  the  body  of  ajjostles.  Having  sent  them 
three  announcements  of  the  great  event  (vs.  7.  11. 13),  he  now,  lastly, 
(or  at  last),  ap2>eared  to  the  eleven,  literally,  to  them  the  eleven,  or  the 
eleven  themselves,  i.  e.  directly,  without  any  further  indirect  or  medi- 
ate communication.  A'pi^eared,  in  Greek  a  passive  form,  was  mani- 
fested (or  disclosed,),  suggesting  the  idea  of  suddenness,  and  agreeing 
with  the  general  fact,  revealed  in  all  the  gospels,  that  the  Saviour's  in- 
tercourse with  the  discii)les,  in  the  interval  bc^tween  his  resurrection 
nnd  ascH'Usion,  was  not  continued  but  occasional,  and  ])robably  at  dis- 
tant intervals  (see  John  20,  2G.)  As  they  sat  at  ?/2tf«^,  literally,  to 
tliem  reclining,  lying  down,  or  lying  up  (to  the  table),  then  the  cns- 
tonuiry  aLtiiude  at  nieuls  (see  above,  on  2, 15.  14,  3. 18.)     i^j^oraided 


MARK  16,  14.  15.  441 

(or  reproacJied)  tJieir  wibelief^  or  rather  incredulity^  in  reference  to 
the  2;reat  fact  of  his  beins:  risen  from  the  dead,  but  not  a  total  want  of 
faith  in  his  divine  authority  or  doctrines.  Hardness  of  heart,  in  Greelt 
a  single  word  {hardlieartedness),  denoting  not  mere  callousness  or  in- 
sensibility of  the  affections,  but  torpor  and  inaction  of  the  whole  heart, 
in  its  widest  sense,  including  intellect  as  well  as  feeling  (see  above,  on  2, 
0.8.  3,5.  4,15.  6,52.  7,10.19.21.  8,17.  10,5.  11,23.  12,30.33.)  The 
specific  ground  of  this  reproach  is  then  assigned,  Itecause  tliey  did  not  he- 
lieve  those  having  seen  (or  loho  had  seen)  hini  risen.  This  is  probabl}^  the 
meeting  from  Avhich  Thomas  was  absent  (John  20,  24),  the  eleven  hav- 
ing relierence  to  the  whole  body,  as  then  constituted,  not  to  the  number 
actually  present  upon  any  one  occasion.  It  thus  appears  that  Thomas 
was  only  guilty  of  the  same  incredulity  a  little  longer  than  the  rest, 
because  not  so  early  favoured  with  the  sight  of  his  risen  master,  and 
that  the  reproach  addressed  to  him  at  the  next  interview  (John  20, 
27-29)  was  equally  applicable  to  the  others. 

15.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature. 

With  the  same  rapidity  and  brevity  which  mark  this  whole  conclud- 
ing narrative,  Mark  subjoins  immediately  to  Christ's  reproof  of  the 
apostles  for  their  unbelief,  their  great  commission,  which  according  to 
Matthew  (28,  16-20)  they  received  in  Galilee,  a  difference  pushed  by 
some  so  far  as  to  allege  that  Mark  represents  our  Lord's  ascension  as 
taking  place  in  the  room  where  the  disciples  were  convened.  The  truth 
is  that  jNIark's  obvious  design  in  this  whole  chapter  is  not  to  relate 
details,  but  simply  to  enumerate  the  links  required  to  complete  the 
great  chain  of  events  which  he  has  been  constructing.  The  analogy  of 
vs.  9--14  would  lead  us  to  expect  no  greater  fulness  than  we  actually 
find  here.  The  essential  fact  is,  that  such  a  commission  was  given  be- 
fore our  Lord's  ascension,  not  the  place  or  other  circumstances,  which 
however  are  recorded  elsewhere.  There  is  also  no  absurdity  in  sup- 
posing as  some  eminent  interpreters  have  done,  that  the  commission 
here  recorded  is  distinct,  i.  e.  uttered  at  a  different  time,  from  that  in 
Matt.  28, 18-20,  the  one  at  Jerusalem,  the  other  in  Galilee,  Go  ye 
into  all  the  ivorM  is  not  in  the  original  a  direct  command,  but  a  parti- 
cipial construction,  going  into  all  the  tvorld,  2^'>'(^ach  the  gosjjel^  from 
which  it  has  sometimes  been  inferred,  that  the  precept  is  conditional 
and  means,  wherever  you  do  go  (for  other  purposes)  there  preach  the 
gospel.  But  the  thought  supplied,  for  other  purposes,  is  perfectly 
gratuitous,  the  true  ellipsis  being, /or  tliis  purpose,  as  the  participle  is 
dependent  on  the  following  verb,  and  is  a  past  form  meaning  strictly, 
having  gone.  The  verb  itself  is  one  that  properly  means  going  to  a 
distance,  journeying  (as  in  v.  12.)  Preach  the  gospjel  has  become  so 
technical  a  phrase  for  official  or  professional  duty,  that  we  often  lose 
sight  of  its  primary  and  proper  sense,  proclaim  the  good  neics.  publish 
the  glad  tidings  of  salvation.  To  every  creature,  or  more  exactly,  to  the 
whole  creation^  which  may  either  be  a  parallel  equivalent  to  all  the 

19* 


442  MARK  IG,  16.  17. 

world,  then  put  for  its  inhabitants,  or  may  mean  the  moral  and  in- 
telligent creation,  with  specific  reference,  in  this  case,  to  mankind,  as 
the  subjects  of  salvation,  and  the  recipients  of  the  gospel  message. 

16.  He  that  believetli  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ; 
but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned. 

The  command  to  preach  the  gospel  is  attended  by  a  solemn  sanc- 
tion, or  a  promise  and  a  threatening,  to  show  its  bearing  on  the  destiny 
of  those  who  shall  embrace  it  or  reject  it.  The  (one)  helieving  (it  as 
true,  or  as  from  God,  and  accepting  the  salvation  which  it  offers)  shall 
be  saved  (delivered  from  all  evil,  natural  and  moral,  or  from  sin  as  well 
as  suffei'ing),  and  the  {one)  di&belieiing  (refusing  to  believe,  the  same 
verb  as  in  v.  11,  rejecting  it  as  false,  and  the  Saviour  whom  it  offers) 
shall  he  damned,  a  word  not  too  strong  to  express  eternal  ruin  or  per- 
dition, but  from  its  modern  use  or  abuse,  awakening  different  associa- 
tions from  the  Greek  verb,  which  means  simply,  shall  le  judged  against^ 
i.  e.  condemned,  implying,  although  not  expressing,  the  same  terrible 
result. 

17.  And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe  : 

In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils  ;  they  shall  speak 

with  new  tongues. 

(As)  signs  (or  proofs  of  your  divine  legation)  to  those  Relieving  (or 
converted  by  your  preaching)  these  (things)  shall  folloio  {it.)  This 
seems  to  be  a  simpler  and  more  natural  construction  than  the  one  com- 
monly adopted,  these  signs  shall  folloio  those  believing,  i.  e.  go  with 
them  wherever  the}^  go.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  this  is  a  promise 
of  miraculous  gifts  to  all  believers,  and  if  so  how  it  was  fulfilled.  As  the 
miracles  here  mentioned  were  to  serve  as  signs  or  proofs,  their  end 
would  be  attained  without  their  being  universal,  i.  e.  by  their  being 
bestowed  upon  many,  or  even  on  a  few,  who  may  possibly  be  those 
represented  as  helieving,  not  with  a  saving  faith  merely  but  a  special 
faith  of  miracles  (see  above,  on  9,  29.)  Or  the  promise  may  be  to  be- 
lievers as  a  body,  though  it  was  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  experience  of  only 
some.  And  as  this  whole  discourse  has  reference  to  the  planting  and 
extension  of  the  church  in  the  first  ages,  the  presumption,  even  from  its 
terms,  would  be,  that  these  miraculous  endowments  were  a  temporary 
gift,  a  presumption  since  confirmed  by  the  experience  of  the  church,  al- 
though the  time  cannot  be  ascertained  at  which  they  wholly  ceased. 
In  my  name,  bearing  it,  invoking  it,  and  claiming  for  me  all  that  it  im- 
ports, as  well  as  acting  for  me  and  by  my  authority  (see  above,  on  9,- 
37-39. 41.  11,  9,  10.  13,  G.  13.)  They  shall  eiyel  demons,  here  as 
elsewhere  (see  above,  on  1, 34.  39.  3, 15.  G,  13)  placed  in  the  first 
rank  among  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as  extending  to 
another  world  and  to  another  race  of  spiritual  beings.  New  tongues 
can  only  mean  languages  before  unknown  to  the  speakers,  in  which 
sense  the  promise  was  fulfilled  at  Pentecost,  and  on  a  smaller  scale  in 


MAKK  IG,  17.  18.  19.  443 


other  cases  still  preserved  in  apostolical  history.  (See  Acts  2,  4.  10,  46. 
19,  6,  and  compare  1  Cor.  13,  1.  8.  14,  5.  6. 18.  22.  23.  39.)  This  is  one 
of  the  grounds,  on  which  the  sceptical  critics  would  reject  this  passage 
as  a  spurious  addition  to  the  gospel,  while  to  others,  free  from  such 
dogmatic  prepossessions,  it  is  rather  a  confirmation  of  its  authenticity 
and  genuineness. 

18.  They  shall  take  up  serpents ;  and  if  they  drink 
any  deadly  thing,  it  sliall  not  hurt  them ;  they  shall  lay 
hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover. 

TaTce  wp  serpents^  handle  venomous  and  deadly  reptiles  without  in- 
jury, a  prophecy  fulfilled  in  the  experience  of  Paul  (Acts  28,  2). 
though  pronounced  by  some  interpreters  entirely  irrelevant  and  of 
another  kind.  As  the  Greek  verb  often  means  to  talce  away  or  to 
take  up  for  the  purpose  of  removing  (see  above,  on  2. 12.  21.  4, 15.  25. 
6,  8.  29.  43.  8,  8.  11,  23.  13, 15. 16.  15,  21),  some  explain  it  here  in  re- 
ference to  the  expulsion  of  noxious  animals  from  certain  regions,  as  by 
St.  Paul  from  jMalta,  and  St.  Patrick  from  Ireland ;  but  these  are  later 
legends,  and  the  other  miracles  here  mentioned  are  instantaneous  acts 
upon  particular  occasions.  Anything  deadly,  mortal,  fatal,  such  as 
poison.  Shall  not,  the  strong  aorist  negation  excluding  every  possible 
contingency.  Hurt  them,  not  in  the  sense  of  giving  pain,  but  in  that 
of  permanently  injuring,  or  more  specifically,  killing.  There  is  no  par 
ticular  fulfilment  of  this  promise  upon  record  in  the  sacred  history,  and 
the  later  legend  of  John's  drinking  poison  may  have  been  directly  de- 
rived from  it.  But  this  is  no  proof  that  it  was  not  really  fulfilled,  as 
the  cases  above  mentioned  were  recorded  incidentally,  for  other  reasons, 
not  as  specimens,  much  less  as  an  exhaustive  list,  of  such  fulfilments. 
On  the  infirm  (strengthless,  as  in  6,  5.  13),  they  shall  lay  hands,  as 
the  twelve  did  when  first  sent  out  (see  above,  on  9, 13.)  Recover, 
literally,  have  {themselves)  icell  (the  converse  of  the  phrase  employed  in 
1,  32.  34.  2,  17.  6,  55),  which  some  strangely  understand,  not  of  the 
sick,  but  of  the  healers,  who  should  not  only  give  health  to  others,  but 
enjoy  it  unimpaired  themselves. 

19.  So  then,  after  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  them,  he 

was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  on  the  right  hand 

of  God. 

So  then,  a  resumptive  and  continuative  particle  of  frequent  use  in 
the  New  Testament,  thou2;h  not  in  this  book,  which  is  far  from  render- 
ing  the  genuineness  of  this  passage  doubtful,  as  the  writer  only  intro- 
duces the  phrase  here  to  wind  up  his  whole  narrative.  The  Lord,  now 
absolutely  so  called,  when  his  sovereignt}'  or  lordship  had  been  proved 
and  attested  by  his  resurrection.  After  the  speaking  to  them  (just  re- 
corded), i.  e.  the  commission  to  evangelize  the  world,  with  the  accom- 
panying sanction  and  assurance  of  divine  assistance.  Was  taken  up>,  and 
as  the  Greek  verb  would  at  once  suggest  to  every  reader,  talceyi  lack, 


i>t 


444  MARK  IG,  19.  20. 

• 
the  preposition  used  in  composition  signifying  both  upward  motion  and 
repetition  or  restoration,  as  in  dvafSXeTrco,  to  look  up  and  to  see  again 
(see  above,  on  8,  24.  25.  10,  51.  52.)  Into  the  heaven,  the  sky,  the 
visible  expanse,  referring  merely  to  the  apparent  direction  of  the  move- 
ment ;  or  into  that  part  of  the  universe  where  God  permanently  mani- 
fests his  presence  to  the  saints  and  angels  (see  above,  on  1, 10.  G,  41. 
7,  34.  11,25.  12,  25.  13,  32.  14  G2.)  Sat  (or  sat  doicn)  on  the  right, 
literally,  y)'^??i  the  rights,  the  same  peculiar  idiom  tliat  occurs  above,  in 
10,  37.  40.  12,  36.  14,  62.  15,  27,  and  in  which  the  a'ljective  agrees  with 
2Mrts  or  places,  as  it  does  in  English  with  side  or  hand.  The  right 
hand  here  denotes  the  place  of  honour  and  of  shared  or  delegated  power, 
and  the  whole  phrase  Christ's  assumption  of  the  mediatorial  dignity, 
w^hich  he  had  purchased  by  his  sufferings  and  obedience  (see  above, 
on  12,  36.) 

20.  And  they  went  forth,  and  preached  every  where, 
the  Lord  working  with  (them),  and  confirming  the  w^ord 
with  signs  following.     Amen. 

But  they,  the  apostles,  as  the  other  party  in  this  great  transaction. 
going  out  {or  forth),  not  from  the  room  in  which  the  Lord  appeared  to 
them,  which  some  assert  to  be  the  only  meaning  that  the  words  will 
bear,  but  from  Jerusalem,  after  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
the  dispersion  of  the  mother  church,  as  recorded  in  the  first  part  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Pr.eached  (announced,  proclaimed  the  new 
religion)  everywhere,  in  all  directions,  and  perhaps  more  strictly  still, 
in  all  parts  of  the  world,  as  we  know  that  the  original  diffusion  of  the 
gospel  was  extremely  rapid  and  simultaneous,  which  accounts  for  the 
absence  of  detailed  information,  while  the  general  result  is  among  the 
most  notorious  facts  of  history.  The  Lord,  the  risen  and  ascended  Sa- 
viour, mentioned  just  before  hy  the  same  title,  icorMng  with  (them), 
co-operating,  an  expression  also  employed  by  Paul  (2  Cor.  6,  1)  to  de- 
note the  gracious  use  of  human  instrumental  agency  in  executing  the 
divine  plans.  The  particular  co-operation  here  intended  is  that  prom- 
ised in  V.  17,  of  which  this  clause  describes  the  general  fulfilment. 
Conjir^ning,  fortif3'^ing,  strengthening,  corroborating,  rendering  effec- 
tive, by  miraculous  credentials.  The  word^  i.  e.  the  gospel  which  they 
preached  as  a  divine  revelation.  With  (literally,  through,  by  means 
of)  t?ie  following  (or  accomjKmying)  signs,  not  signs  in  general,  but 
those  specifically  promised  in  the  previous  context  (see  above,  on  vs. 
17.  18.)  It  would  not  be  easy  to  find  two  sliort  sentences  containing 
more  than  these  concluding  verses,  one  of  which  describes  the  whole 
process  of  our  Saviour's  exaltation,  and  the  other  the  w^hole  missionary 
work  of  the  apostles,  as  its  necessar}'-  fruit,  and  therefore  a  conclusive 
proof  of  its  reality.  If  the  original  conclusion  of  this  book  is  lost,  its 
place  has  been  wonderfully  well  supplied. 


ii. 


THE   END. 


DATE  DUE 

«— ■***^ 

^^«fi> 

^^ai^igmm^^m 

^ 

AkrOU^^MMifiiflBf^ 

Al»»aiftA 

. 

^W^IpJ^iK^'^R""''  1 

* 

^■'"iRr^Tr^i' 

«(j 

^^^^Ni» 

S&i. 

•  J-" . . 

.^^  fs 

'/■'■' 

lOQfll 

m^^ 

W* 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  us    A. 

':  '^f  5 


BS2585 .A376 

The  Gospel  according  to  Mark. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


m 


